This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: cp to flash drive very slow

> Well, yes.  The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is 
> USB 2.0 with fallback to 1.1.  The computer is a Dell 
> Dimension 4600 which claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors.  
> Running Windows XP.

Ok, like Hannu said, it's a USB 2.0 connection then, as long as you don't
have any USB 1.1 hubs in between the two.  I.e., if you're plugging the
drive directly into the computer, it's 2.0 all the way.

(EIGHT USB 2.0 connectors?  Wowzers!  This USB fad just might be catching
on! ;-))

> I don't think caching is the difference.  I was able to unzip 
> the .zip file right after xcopy had copied it.

Well, that's exactly what caching is intended for.  The first xcopy copies
the file to a RAM buffer, and the RAM buffer gets sputtered out to the drive
in the background.  The unzip, in the reverse direction, would end up
reading from that same RAM buffer.

> Is there anything faster than cp for copying out of the 
> cygwin tools?  I'm working out some scripts to share files 
> between my work machine and my home machine using the flash 
> drive.  I could use xcopy but then I'd have to go through the 
> filename translation doohicky.

The latter is what I ended up having to do, but it wasn't for speed reasons
alone (cp was corrupting files over the network "back in the day").  I can't
think of any other alternatives offhand that would make any sense to do a
local copy like this.

What happens if you cp between two hard drives, or across the network?  Same
crazy slowness?

Gary R. Van Sickle

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]