Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3F75FF96.A0DEABEA@dessent.net> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:22:30 -0700 From: Brian Dessent Organization: My own little world... X-Accept-Language: en,en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: ftp way quicker than cp? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Note-from-DJ: This may be spam Andrew DeFaria wrote: > I was aware that there is SMB overhead - just didn't think it would be > that great! It's not necessarily overhead as in "extra data" but also round trip delay times. SMB was designed for use with a low-latency local network connection, in contrast to FTP which was designed to just stream raw data over a TCP connection. In other words there's a bunch of message passing and other "overhead" that takes TIME in addition to bandwith with SMB. > > IOW, this is not really Cygwin-related. > > This is true if such large overhead is only attributable to SMB. I think you'll find that the Cygwin "cp" command takes about the same time as "copy" from a regular command prompt, which should also be comparable to Explorer's copy function. Brian -- 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/