Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:27:56 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
Message-ID: <20060803012756.GB31994@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <5528112 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <44C91F4A DOT 8050404 AT cygwin DOT com> <20060727201931 DOT GD3409 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <5528898 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <20060727211107 DOT GB4348 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20060727220054 DOT GC6653 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <44D13F14 DOT 2060004 AT x-ray DOT at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44D13F14.2060004@x-ray.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:11:00AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>Christopher Faylor schrieb:
>>On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>On Jul 27 13:48, aldana wrote:
>>>>isn't there a possibitly that cygwin provides a quicker
>>>>cp-implementation?  i mean 4 minutes for a copy of 70MB to a memstick
>>>>(instead of CopyFile() 20 sec.) is not really good performance.  i
>>>>guess there is a reason for that...
>>>Right, how did you know?  The reason is that cp is a portable
>>>implementation using simple reads and writes to perform the copy.
>>>There's no such thing as a CopyFile routine on POSIX systems.
>>
>>A few weeks ago there was a guy in libc-alpha mailing list complaining
>>that glibc's API wasn't as rich and powerful as what is found on Windows.
>>
>>As far as I know he's still alive.
>
>Well, this brave guy has a point. :)

He wasn't brave.  He was stupid.  He didn't understand what glibc was
supposed to be providing and he wouldn't understand it even when it was
explained to him.

>I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad 
>reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted 
>upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think 
>about?

If this is what you want then you should look into a non-cygwin
solution.  There are a couple of projects which provide GNU tools for
Windows without resorting to something like the Cygwin DLL.

Also, don't you see something wrong with the mindset of "Windows Fast.
Cygwin Slow.  So, must use straight Windows functions." without even
bothering to do any research into what is causing the slowness?  How do
you, or anyone who cares about this know that this "problem", know that
it isn't correctable without resorting to patching cp?

cgf

--
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/