cygwin copy problems usb 2.0

Reini Urban rurban@x-ray.at
Thu Aug 3 00:10:00 GMT 2006


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. :)

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?

My USB transfers are also way to slow, because we are copying our hourly 
radio shows (80 MB) onto the stick every week. Everyone is angry. Linux 
USB drivers are very unstable, so windows has a good reputation there.

BTW: Windows Explorer is even faster than Total Commander. We tested it.
-- 
Reini

--
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/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list