you wrote:
> What happens if you cp between two hard drives, or across the
> network? Same
> crazy slowness?
>
> --
> Gary R. Van Sickle
How about 'tar --diff' and '--update' - tried them?
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE Microcomputer systems--72-->
** mailing list preference; p
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OT] RE: cp to flash drive very slow
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> > > Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is USB
> > > 2.0 with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell Dimension 4600
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >
> >>> Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is USB
> >>> 2.0 with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell Dimension 4600
> >>> which claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors.
> >>> Running Windows XP.
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
>>> Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is
>>> USB 2.0 with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell
>>> Dimension 4600 which claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors.
>>> Running Windows XP.
>> [snip]
>>
>
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is
> > USB 2.0 with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell
> > Dimension 4600 which claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors.
> > Running Windows XP.
> [snip]
>
> (EIGHT USB 2.0 connectors? Wow
> Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is
> USB 2.0 with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell
> Dimension 4600 which claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors.
> Running Windows XP.
>
Ok, like Hannu said, it's a USB 2.0 connection then, as long as you don't
have any USB 1.1 h
you ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on :
> Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is USB 2.0
> with fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell Dimension 4600 which
> claims eight USB 2.0 connectiors. Running Windows XP.
Right, then we know. ;-)
> I don't think caching is the diffe
Well, yes. The flash drive is a Sandisk Cruzer Mini which is USB 2.0 with
fallback to 1.1. The computer is a Dell Dimension 4600 which claims eight
USB 2.0 connectiors. Running Windows XP.
I don't think caching is the difference. I was able to unzip the .zip
file right after xcopy had copied i
you wrote:
> Thanks for responding, Gary.
>
>> Regardless, <3.7Mb/second seems like something's wrong somewhere.
>> Are you running USB2.0 hub-to-device?
>
> I dunno. I'm not very knowledgable about hardware esp. USB. How
> would I tell?
>
> dar
Sorry for butting in...
I'd say it should've re
Thanks for responding, Gary.
> Regardless, <3.7Mb/second seems like something's wrong somewhere. Are you
> running USB2.0 hub-to-device?
I dunno. I'm not very knowledgable about hardware esp. USB. How would I
tell?
dar
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > I tried using cp to c
> I tried using cp to copy a zip file 106MB from my hard drive
> to my flash drive (sandisk mini cruzer). After 20 minutes it
> still had not completed.
>
> xcopy copied the file in 22 seconds.
>
> Why would cp be so much slower? Any ideas as to work-arounds?
>
Last I checked, cp was slower
11 matches
Mail list logo