Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3F75FF96.A0DEABEA@dessent.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:22:30 -0700
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
Organization: My own little world...
X-Accept-Language: en,en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ftp way quicker than cp?
References: <bl4k23$69n$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0309271419430 DOT 3193 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <bl4pkc$d5k$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> I was aware that there is SMB overhead - just didn't think it would be
> that great!

It's not necessarily overhead as in "extra data" but also round trip
delay times.  SMB was designed for use with a low-latency local network
connection, in contrast to FTP which was designed to just stream raw
data over a TCP connection.  In other words there's a bunch of message
passing and other "overhead" that takes TIME in addition to bandwith
with SMB.

> > IOW, this is not really Cygwin-related.
> 
> This is true if such large overhead is only attributable to SMB.

I think you'll find that the Cygwin "cp" command takes about the same
time as "copy" from a regular command prompt, which should also be
comparable to Explorer's copy function.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/