X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <44C90792.3000801@cygwin.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:02 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20060112 Fedora/1.5-1.fc4.remi Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0 References: <5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <000901c6b194$d56881f0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41> <5525767 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> In-Reply-To: <5525767.post@talk.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm 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 aldana wrote: > 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? There could be. But why speculate? Write yourself a simple utility that uses CopyFile() directly and see if that makes up the difference. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/