Speed of Cygwin's cp vs. Windows Explorer

ls-cygwin-2006@m-e-leypold.de ls-cygwin-2006@m-e-leypold.de
Sun May 13 15:06:00 GMT 2007

Eric Blake <ebb9@xxx.xxx> writes:

> According to Bob Heckel on 5/12/2007 7:23 AM:
>> Why would using Cygwin's cp to copy a large file from one Windows XP
>> box to another take 30 minutes but take only 10 minutes if I use drag
>> 'n' drop (via Explorer)?
> It has been mentioned in the past, and one of the ideas was adding support
> for posix_fadvise (added in the snapshots, but not in 1.5.x) and making
> coreutils take advantage of it to give Windows better hints about how the
> data being manipulated will be laid out.  I have not yet had time to play
> with this idea further, and the upstream coreutils maintainers are
> reluctant to rely on posix_fadvise just yet (since Linux currently has a
> bug where stating a file is read-once flushes it from the os cache for ALL
> processes, rather than just the process that is only going to read it
> once, which makes the read-once hint rather useless).

I thought that was what software configuration (and autoconf) was for:
-DHAVE_DEFECTIVE_fadvise or something like that should just remove the
support from coreutils like (AFAIR) you can remove use of mmap() too.

>> I'm in a position of defending the use of Cygwin instead of the manual
>> Windows way of doing things by those not familiar with Unix.  Any
>> hints would be appreciated.
> At least cygwin cp preserves permissions correctly.  Windows drag-n-drop
> has the annoying tendency of marking everything executable.


Regards -- Markus

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