X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <5525767.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT) From: aldana To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0 In-Reply-To: <000901c6b194$d56881f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-Sender: aldana AT gmx DOT de X-Nabble-From: aldana References: <5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <000901c6b194$d56881f0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com total commander is a clone of norton commander. something like midnight commander on linux. i thought the same: choice between usb 1.x and 2.0 is done far lower level that cygwin can really influence it. but the difference of speed made me consipicious. example, copying a single file (.tar.gz) of size ~70MB: with total commander it takes 20 sec. with cygwin it takes 4 minutes (!), which is plain too long to include it in my script. i know through its abstracton layer cygwin must be slower. but regarding that slowliness could it be another reason? thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cygwin-copy-problems-usb-2.0-tf2009189.html#a5525767 Sent from the Cygwin Users forum at Nabble.com. -- 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/