X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=C1u6oXW0dlTsbQS8 E0fStMwzhRU+x2sNuNTXyVcc6O+pr3yap9fahEoKb2EmcoPFMSvVFiCO2r3daHZ2 zr5fAo8fgk3SOpesdYotxzGF2prfa+HGbsTBdqBfoh/w2G7FVDL66rqDZJWqg7BN rqi/V9EvIf+wAU/r1C4PbMk1Flk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=3Q4BlxKsNdLwW8ljbZEL3e mI5iM=; b=foE1UwN9TvNijEuD62XAJjbDcGqrddFnt3P5rXiDCdsZOX/u/k0e2F nLJWk6mT61wh8BlcyPNFuk53KI35dwvBqAq5p9JNPxYZmVSMF0D2YD9ti3JxizLN d+CtvRtnJo5hE6Xn99N5UvS1PSvF+6pj53kWYKO/NN++ILstaPl9Q= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: vms173005pub.verizon.net Message-id: <52432BDB.7080809@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:30:51 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cp vs copy performance over local network References: In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 9/25/2013 1:17 PM, Wm. David Bentlage wrote: > Greetings, > > I've often noticed that there's a big difference in the performance > between Cygwin cp and Windows copy over the local network -- cp > usually takes twice as long for the same operation. Here's an > example: > > muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser > $ time cmd /c copy \\\\server\\w\\cygwin.zip . > 1 file(s) copied. > > real 0m7.344s > user 0m0.015s > sys 0m0.046s > > muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser > $ time cp \\\\server\\w\\cygwin.zip . > > real 0m18.559s > user 0m0.046s > sys 0m2.432s > > muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser > $ uname -a > CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 A4826995 1.7.17(0.262/5/3) 2012-10-19 14:39 i686 Cygwin > > muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser > $ ls -lh cygwin.zip > -rw-r--r-- 1 muser Users 513M Sep 25 11:47 cygwin.zip > > Why is this? Is there something I can do to increase the performance of cp? Use '-l'. ;-) There's overhead to handle POSIX permissions, etc. Perhaps copying to a mount point with 'noacl' would help. Otherwise, you can see all the things that are happening by stracing 'cp'. It may point you to some hints/ideas. -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple