it is a bit faster for me, but i'm not sure if it's the same version as yours:
cpue% time cp tex.iso /dev/null 0.04u 2.00s 27.10r cp tex.iso /dev/null cpue% time fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/dev/null # Windows dt 0.15u 17.70s 16.38r fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/dev/null cpue% time fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/tmp # Windows dt 0.11u 17.91s 20.03r fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/tmp cpue% time fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/dev/null # Linux dt 0.13u 17.41s 16.28r fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/dev/null cpue% time fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/home/fst/xfer # Linux dt 0.14u 17.72s 16.59r fcp tex.iso /mnt/term/home/fst/xfer cpue% ls -s tex.iso 178584 tex.iso cpue% dc 178584 2.00 / p 89292 # 89MB/s for local copy 178584 17.70 / p 10089 # 10MB/s for remote copy > something seems not quite right. Or maybe I'm just missing something. > > in drawterm, > fcp (or cp) xyz /mnt/term/tmp > is now running at about 5 kilobits/sec. That is not a typo. > > I'm must wondering if anyone else is seeing this kind of performance. > I'm seeing from a very recent copy from swtch.com, but I'm not sure if > it is > a foulup on my current network or drawterm. In all other ways drawterm > is quite peppy. > > thanks > > ron
