Speed of Cygwin's cp vs. Windows Explorer
Sun May 13 15:06:00 GMT 2007
Eric Blake <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
More information about the Cygwin