This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ftp way quicker than cp?
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria at Salira dot com>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: ftp way quicker than cp?
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Ftp is orders of magnitude quicker than cp. Here's the situation.
> File to copy: 25 Meg.
> From location: Santa Clara, USA.
> To location: Shanghai, China
> Network connection: Not really sure but both Santa Clara and Shanghai
> are in the same NT domain.
> I tried the following:
> $ time ncftpput sons-cc Release 184.108.40.206.images.tar.gz
> 220.127.116.11.images.tar.gz: 25.99 MB 81.70
> real 5m34.187s
> user 0m0.327s
> sys 0m1.124s
> $ time cp 18.104.22.168.images.tar.gz //sons-shanghai/users/ftp/release
> real 133m39.290s
> user 0m1.186s
> sys 0m7.406s
> Why such a huge difference! Had I thought that such a huge difference
> would have occurred I would have switched to ftp long ago!
You are not really measuring the time needed for "cp". You are measuring
the overhead of SMB share access. Using ftp bypasses all this mechanism
completely, and sends files directly over the network. Try comparing the
time it takes to copy the file in Windows Explorer to the SMB share and to
an FTP location -- you'll probably see the same results.
IOW, this is not really Cygwin-related.
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html