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, 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/
