On 15 May 2007 08:03, Morgan Gangwere wrote:
> it would appear that until we increase the i/o buffer (am i using the
> right term?) to do the cp, we run slower than the windows cp
>
> is there a #DEFINE or some thing that we could add a diff for that
> adventurous people could use?
If you bui
On 5/14/07, Brian Ford wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Bob Heckel wrote:
> 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)?
>
> I saw mention of speed in other posts but couldn't f
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Bob Heckel wrote:
> 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)?
>
> I saw mention of speed in other posts but couldn't figure out if there
> was a soluti
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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,
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)?
I saw mention of speed in other posts but couldn't figure out if there
was a solution - could it be buffer sizes or something configu
6 matches
Mail list logo
