Vista and slow transfers over the network

Discussion in 'MCSA' started by Matt, May 2, 2007.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this question
    or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a P3
    750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller installed with
    a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2 of the
    same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista box to
    a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm lucky on
    if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it transfers
    at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small files
    and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any webpage I
    could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I don't
    think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better than
    expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for studying
    for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It seems
    that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online. The
    transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything please.
    Thanks in advance.
    --
    Matt
    A+, MCP, and MCDST
    Matt, May 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matt

    catwalker63 Guest

    Matt piffled away vaguely:

    > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this question
    > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a P3
    > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller installed with
    > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2 of the
    > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista box to
    > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm lucky on
    > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it transfers
    > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small files
    > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any webpage I
    > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I don't
    > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better than
    > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for studying
    > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It seems
    > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online. The
    > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything please.
    > Thanks in advance.


    I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box are
    a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with it?

    --

    Catwalker
    MCNGP #43
    www.mcngp.com
    "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    catwalker63, May 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only one
    with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a 5400RPM
    drive that has about 70 – 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the LAN. I
    tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I want to
    copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do start
    run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive on the
    server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 – 10% on both
    computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server from a
    mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 – 4%. And that
    is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like MP3’s
    it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This is
    totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100. Both way
    are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and I have
    the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my work.
    --
    Matt
    A+, MCP, and MCDST


    "catwalker63" wrote:

    > Matt piffled away vaguely:
    >
    > > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this question
    > > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a P3
    > > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller installed with
    > > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    > > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2 of the
    > > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista box to
    > > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm lucky on
    > > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it transfers
    > > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small files
    > > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any webpage I
    > > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I don't
    > > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better than
    > > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for studying
    > > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It seems
    > > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online. The
    > > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything please.
    > > Thanks in advance.

    >
    > I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    > processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    > the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    > between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box are
    > a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    > suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with it?
    >
    > --
    >
    > Catwalker
    > MCNGP #43
    > www.mcngp.com
    > "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    >
    >
    Matt, May 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Matt

    catwalker63 Guest

    Matt piffled away vaguely:

    > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only one
    > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a 5400RPM
    > drive that has about 70 – 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the LAN. I
    > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I want to
    > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do start
    > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive on the
    > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 – 10% on both
    > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server from a
    > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 – 4%. And that
    > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like MP3’s
    > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This is
    > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100. Both way
    > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and I have
    > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my work.



    OK, that is weird. Have you checked the MS KB? Have you tried
    submitting your findings to MS?? Vista's still new and it will still be
    a while before they get the bugs shaken out.

    --

    Catwalker
    MCNGP #43
    www.mcngp.com
    "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    catwalker63, May 2, 2007
    #4
  5. catwalker63 <> wrote in
    news::

    > it will still
    > be a while before they get the bugs shaken out.
    >


    So MS fixes their software the same way I remove flies from the light
    fixture on my front patio? If they are as lazy as I am it will be YEARS
    before the bugs are gone!
    Red Swingline Stapler, May 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Matt

    catwalker63 Guest

    Red Swingline Stapler piffled away vaguely:

    > catwalker63 <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> it will still
    >> be a while before they get the bugs shaken out.
    >>

    >
    > So MS fixes their software the same way I remove flies from the light
    > fixture on my front patio? If they are as lazy as I am it will be YEARS
    > before the bugs are gone!


    The light fixture on my front porch open on the bottom. No flies.
    Kinda like me migrating from windoze to linux on the desktop.

    Did I say that out loud?
    --

    Catwalker
    MCNGP #43
    www.mcngp.com
    "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    catwalker63, May 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Matt

    John R Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only one
    > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a 5400RPM
    > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the
    > LAN. I
    > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I want
    > to
    > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do start
    > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive on
    > the
    > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 - 10% on
    > both
    > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server from
    > a
    > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%. And
    > that
    > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like
    > MP3's
    > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This is
    > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100. Both
    > way
    > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and I
    > have
    > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my
    > work.
    > --
    > Matt
    > A+, MCP, and MCDST


    Just for fun, have you check the NIC card settings, ie speed, duplex, etc?
    Are you using a hub/switch? If you are using a switch, is it a managed
    switch and do the settings on the NIC match the port settings in the switch?
    Try manually forcing full duplex and speed, don't depend on auto sense.

    Just a thought.

    John R
    John R, May 3, 2007
    #7
  8. Even though I haven't touched vista and have no experience in it. This
    thread reinforces my belief to stay away from it until next year at least.
    The bugs and the whole "focus on graphics, GUI and the end-user" Microsoft
    initiative seems to have created some issues.

    By the way, Matt, what version of Vista are you running? And I'm sorry your
    having your problems.

    By the way, instead of copying and pasting, have you tried using XCOPY to
    see if you can transfer files faster, instead of "copy and paste"? See if
    using that changes your transfer speeds and network utilization.

    I love XCOPY nested into batch scripts. It makes backups so much easier for
    the end user if all they have to do is "clicky-clicky" haha

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only one
    > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a 5400RPM
    > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the
    > LAN. I
    > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I want
    > to
    > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do start
    > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive on
    > the
    > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 - 10% on
    > both
    > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server from
    > a
    > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%. And
    > that
    > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like
    > MP3's
    > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This is
    > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100. Both
    > way
    > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and I
    > have
    > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my
    > work.
    > --
    > Matt
    > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >
    >
    > "catwalker63" wrote:
    >
    >> Matt piffled away vaguely:
    >>
    >> > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this
    >> > question
    >> > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a
    >> > P3
    >> > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller
    >> > installed with
    >> > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    >> > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2
    >> > of the
    >> > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista
    >> > box to
    >> > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm
    >> > lucky on
    >> > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it
    >> > transfers
    >> > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small
    >> > files
    >> > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any
    >> > webpage I
    >> > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I
    >> > don't
    >> > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better
    >> > than
    >> > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for
    >> > studying
    >> > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It
    >> > seems
    >> > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online.
    >> > The
    >> > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything
    >> > please.
    >> > Thanks in advance.

    >>
    >> I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    >> processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    >> the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    >> between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box are
    >> a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    >> suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with it?
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Catwalker
    >> MCNGP #43
    >> www.mcngp.com
    >> "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    >>
    >>
    Keith Chilton, May 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Ok here is the list of everything that I have done to the best of my memory.
    My Vista Ultimate Box is an Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig RAM 2 160Gig WD SATA2
    drives and a Broadcom gigabit NIC
    My server is a P3 750 Coppermine 384Meg of RAM with a SATA1 card and a
    160Gig WD drive. It has an Intel Pro 1000/GT card. Both of course are PCI
    cards.
    All the most updated drivers on every piece of hardware on both the server
    and the vista box
    The gigabit switch is a brand new 3com unmanaged and the 100Mbps is a 3com
    router/5port switch
    Issue is on both switches one or the other.
    Turned flow control to Tx, Rx/Tx, auto, off doesn’t make a drastic change
    Tried netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
    Uninstalled Remote Differential Compression
    Tried different cables. I’m running Cat5e and I have read and been told that
    6 would not make a big difference.
    I know that there are a few other things that I have tried but can’t
    remember them purely out of frustration. I know this is a Vista issue because
    I can copy files like a raped ape from/to the server from an old laptop
    running XP Pro. I check the performance monitor in Vista (Which is nice) and
    the transfer speed from HDD to HDD on the Vista box it steady at around
    100MB/sec with burst up to 150MB/sec and that is with small files. Large file
    is better at around steady transfer of 150MB/sec up to 200MB/sec burst. On
    the server the HDTach shows its read speed at 90MB/sec. Write speed is half
    that. I don’t have the resources to get another Vista box to test/try Vista
    to Vista transfers but I do have the same issue running Vista Business at
    work. And I’m the guinea pig at work so no one else is running Vista yet. But
    it is having the same issues with file transfers.
    I found a command from Microsoft call robocopy but have as yet to try. I’m
    just not impressed that I have to use a command line command to copy files
    just because the way I have been doing it for years doesn’t want to work in
    Vista. To be honest this is the only thing that I do not like about Vista. I
    at the point that I could try to reload Vista but I really don’t think that
    is going to do a bit of good. So I guess its deal with it until MS fixes it.
    Thanks to all that have posted I really do appreciate the input.


    --
    Matt
    A+, MCP, and MCDST


    "Matt" wrote:

    > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this question
    > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a P3
    > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller installed with
    > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2 of the
    > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista box to
    > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm lucky on
    > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it transfers
    > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small files
    > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any webpage I
    > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I don't
    > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better than
    > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for studying
    > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It seems
    > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online. The
    > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything please.
    > Thanks in advance.
    > --
    > Matt
    > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    Matt, May 3, 2007
    #9
  10. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Well here is the list of things that I have tried to the best of my memory
    First let me list what my computers are that I’m using. I have a Vista
    Ultimate Box on an Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig or Ram with 2 WD SATA2 drives no
    Raid and an integrated Broadcom Gigabit adapter. A Win2k3 Enterprise server
    running on a P3 750 384 Meg of Ram with at PCI SATA1 card with a WD 160Gig
    and an Intel Pro 1000 GT Nic.
    All hardware on both machines has the latest drivers.
    I have tried flow control Tx, Rx/Tx, auto, off with no change
    I have tried the Netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
    Uninstalled Remote Differential Compression
    I have a 3com gigabit unmanaged switch and a 10/100 switch/router issue with
    both
    Tired copying files from an XP box on 100Mbps and don’t have an issue. 70%
    network usage when transferring files.
    I’m using Cat5e I have read that Cat6 would not make a big difference so I
    have not purchased new cables.
    The transfer rate on the Vista box on HD to HD is 100MB/sec on average.
    Faster with larger files and slower with multiple smaller files.
    And the transfer rate on the server is 90MB/sec and write is about half of
    that. And both of the systems rate far exceed the 2-8MB/sec transfer via
    network. So I have no idea what else it could be other then Vista is a pile.
    I have not been able to try Vista to Vista transfer I would really like to
    see how that performs.
    I know that I have tried other things but I can’t remember out of
    frustration.
    If anyone has any other suggestions I would love to hear them. Thanks again
    for everyone’s help.

    --
    Matt
    A+, MCP, and MCDST


    "Keith Chilton" wrote:

    > Even though I haven't touched vista and have no experience in it. This
    > thread reinforces my belief to stay away from it until next year at least.
    > The bugs and the whole "focus on graphics, GUI and the end-user" Microsoft
    > initiative seems to have created some issues.
    >
    > By the way, Matt, what version of Vista are you running? And I'm sorry your
    > having your problems.
    >
    > By the way, instead of copying and pasting, have you tried using XCOPY to
    > see if you can transfer files faster, instead of "copy and paste"? See if
    > using that changes your transfer speeds and network utilization.
    >
    > I love XCOPY nested into batch scripts. It makes backups so much easier for
    > the end user if all they have to do is "clicky-clicky" haha
    >
    > "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only one
    > > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a 5400RPM
    > > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the
    > > LAN. I
    > > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I want
    > > to
    > > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do start
    > > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive on
    > > the
    > > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 - 10% on
    > > both
    > > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server from
    > > a
    > > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%. And
    > > that
    > > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like
    > > MP3's
    > > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This is
    > > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100. Both
    > > way
    > > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and I
    > > have
    > > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my
    > > work.
    > > --
    > > Matt
    > > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    > >
    > >
    > > "catwalker63" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Matt piffled away vaguely:
    > >>
    > >> > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this
    > >> > question
    > >> > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its on a
    > >> > P3
    > >> > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller
    > >> > installed with
    > >> > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read at
    > >> > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and 2
    > >> > of the
    > >> > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my Vista
    > >> > box to
    > >> > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm
    > >> > lucky on
    > >> > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it
    > >> > transfers
    > >> > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of small
    > >> > files
    > >> > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any
    > >> > webpage I
    > >> > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I
    > >> > don't
    > >> > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs better
    > >> > than
    > >> > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for
    > >> > studying
    > >> > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers. It
    > >> > seems
    > >> > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read online.
    > >> > The
    > >> > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything
    > >> > please.
    > >> > Thanks in advance.
    > >>
    > >> I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    > >> processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    > >> the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    > >> between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box are
    > >> a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    > >> suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with it?
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >>
    > >> Catwalker
    > >> MCNGP #43
    > >> www.mcngp.com
    > >> "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
    Matt, May 3, 2007
    #10
  11. You mentioned a switch in there. Have you tried your connection without the
    switch between you wherever it's plugged into. Maybe the switch is running
    into issues with Vista's protocol stack. Have you tried any network
    analyzing software to monitor your adapter (if it's not integrated into the
    Motherboard)? Have you tried using the adapter in an XP machine? Switch it
    out, what the heck. At least you will have ruled out the adapter as the
    potential problem. If it's ok put it back in the Vista machine. I would try
    ruling out all possible hardware problems at this stage in the game. If all
    of that fails, i would look for some network card analyzing software out
    there. How does the Event log look by the way? Anything weird going on in
    there when you copy and paste?

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well here is the list of things that I have tried to the best of my memory
    > First let me list what my computers are that I'm using. I have a Vista
    > Ultimate Box on an Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig or Ram with 2 WD SATA2 drives no
    > Raid and an integrated Broadcom Gigabit adapter. A Win2k3 Enterprise
    > server
    > running on a P3 750 384 Meg of Ram with at PCI SATA1 card with a WD 160Gig
    > and an Intel Pro 1000 GT Nic.
    > All hardware on both machines has the latest drivers.
    > I have tried flow control Tx, Rx/Tx, auto, off with no change
    > I have tried the Netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
    > Uninstalled Remote Differential Compression
    > I have a 3com gigabit unmanaged switch and a 10/100 switch/router issue
    > with
    > both
    > Tired copying files from an XP box on 100Mbps and don't have an issue. 70%
    > network usage when transferring files.
    > I'm using Cat5e I have read that Cat6 would not make a big difference so I
    > have not purchased new cables.
    > The transfer rate on the Vista box on HD to HD is 100MB/sec on average.
    > Faster with larger files and slower with multiple smaller files.
    > And the transfer rate on the server is 90MB/sec and write is about half of
    > that. And both of the systems rate far exceed the 2-8MB/sec transfer via
    > network. So I have no idea what else it could be other then Vista is a
    > pile.
    > I have not been able to try Vista to Vista transfer I would really like to
    > see how that performs.
    > I know that I have tried other things but I can't remember out of
    > frustration.
    > If anyone has any other suggestions I would love to hear them. Thanks
    > again
    > for everyone's help.
    >
    > --
    > Matt
    > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >
    >
    > "Keith Chilton" wrote:
    >
    >> Even though I haven't touched vista and have no experience in it. This
    >> thread reinforces my belief to stay away from it until next year at
    >> least.
    >> The bugs and the whole "focus on graphics, GUI and the end-user"
    >> Microsoft
    >> initiative seems to have created some issues.
    >>
    >> By the way, Matt, what version of Vista are you running? And I'm sorry
    >> your
    >> having your problems.
    >>
    >> By the way, instead of copying and pasting, have you tried using XCOPY to
    >> see if you can transfer files faster, instead of "copy and paste"? See
    >> if
    >> using that changes your transfer speeds and network utilization.
    >>
    >> I love XCOPY nested into batch scripts. It makes backups so much easier
    >> for
    >> the end user if all they have to do is "clicky-clicky" haha
    >>
    >> "Matt" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only
    >> > one
    >> > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a
    >> > 5400RPM
    >> > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the
    >> > LAN. I
    >> > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I
    >> > want
    >> > to
    >> > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do
    >> > start
    >> > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive
    >> > on
    >> > the
    >> > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 - 10%
    >> > on
    >> > both
    >> > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server
    >> > from
    >> > a
    >> > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%. And
    >> > that
    >> > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like
    >> > MP3's
    >> > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This
    >> > is
    >> > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100.
    >> > Both
    >> > way
    >> > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and
    >> > I
    >> > have
    >> > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my
    >> > work.
    >> > --
    >> > Matt
    >> > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "catwalker63" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Matt piffled away vaguely:
    >> >>
    >> >> > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this
    >> >> > question
    >> >> > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its
    >> >> > on a
    >> >> > P3
    >> >> > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller
    >> >> > installed with
    >> >> > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read
    >> >> > at
    >> >> > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and
    >> >> > 2
    >> >> > of the
    >> >> > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my
    >> >> > Vista
    >> >> > box to
    >> >> > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm
    >> >> > lucky on
    >> >> > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it
    >> >> > transfers
    >> >> > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of
    >> >> > small
    >> >> > files
    >> >> > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any
    >> >> > webpage I
    >> >> > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I
    >> >> > don't
    >> >> > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs
    >> >> > better
    >> >> > than
    >> >> > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for
    >> >> > studying
    >> >> > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers.
    >> >> > It
    >> >> > seems
    >> >> > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read
    >> >> > online.
    >> >> > The
    >> >> > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything
    >> >> > please.
    >> >> > Thanks in advance.
    >> >>
    >> >> I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    >> >> processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    >> >> the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    >> >> between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box
    >> >> are
    >> >> a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    >> >> suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with
    >> >> it?
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >>
    >> >> Catwalker
    >> >> MCNGP #43
    >> >> www.mcngp.com
    >> >> "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    Keith Chilton, May 3, 2007
    #11
  12. Matt

    Matt Guest

    The NIC on the Vista box is integrated. And the best I could do would be to
    add a 10/100 card to it not another gigabit card. And I have tried without
    the switch. The switch is a gigabit but I have the issue with 2 other 10/100
    switch/router. The only thing that I have tried as far as monitoring software
    is the performance monitor that is built into Vista and that is where I have
    been watching drive write speed and network usage. My XP box is a laptop with
    an integrated NIC and I don’t have a PCMCIA card to put in to try but it does
    not have the slow transfer rate. Well it does only because it is 10/100 but
    70 – 80% usage is what I would expect on 10/100. And in all of this I’m not
    looking for that kind of usage on gigabit it would be nice but at 70 – 80% on
    gigabit would be about 90MB/sec which my hardware is not going to be able to
    do but I figured 40% at least which is 50MB/sec. The event viewer doesn’t
    really have anything that jumps out at me. Is there anything that I should be
    looking for? If figure that if there is an issue it would list it as a
    warning or error. The other thing that really is strange is when I copy
    files off the Vista box to the server from the server the transfer is steady.
    But from the server to the vista box from vista the transfer is not steady
    and what I mean is that it will run up to 8 then to 0 then back up and down
    the entire time. So all of this leads me to believe one of two things. Bad
    NIC on my desktop or Vista is the whole issue. I think the next set is to try
    a different NIC. It is going to be a 10/100 card. So if I have the same issue
    with that card I would venture to say that it is the OS and not a hardware
    related issue. Also I tried different cables albeit cat5e they were different
    cables and same issue. I also made sure that the switch and router were not
    getting hot and they are not anything but warm. I just checked the event
    viewer and there is nothing in there leading me to believe there is an issue
    with software as it doesn’t show any errors or warnings that have anything to
    do with the networking aspect except for when I switched cables.
    --
    Matt
    A+, MCP, and MCDST


    "Keith Chilton" wrote:

    > You mentioned a switch in there. Have you tried your connection without the
    > switch between you wherever it's plugged into. Maybe the switch is running
    > into issues with Vista's protocol stack. Have you tried any network
    > analyzing software to monitor your adapter (if it's not integrated into the
    > Motherboard)? Have you tried using the adapter in an XP machine? Switch it
    > out, what the heck. At least you will have ruled out the adapter as the
    > potential problem. If it's ok put it back in the Vista machine. I would try
    > ruling out all possible hardware problems at this stage in the game. If all
    > of that fails, i would look for some network card analyzing software out
    > there. How does the Event log look by the way? Anything weird going on in
    > there when you copy and paste?
    >
    > "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Well here is the list of things that I have tried to the best of my memory
    > > First let me list what my computers are that I'm using. I have a Vista
    > > Ultimate Box on an Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig or Ram with 2 WD SATA2 drives no
    > > Raid and an integrated Broadcom Gigabit adapter. A Win2k3 Enterprise
    > > server
    > > running on a P3 750 384 Meg of Ram with at PCI SATA1 card with a WD 160Gig
    > > and an Intel Pro 1000 GT Nic.
    > > All hardware on both machines has the latest drivers.
    > > I have tried flow control Tx, Rx/Tx, auto, off with no change
    > > I have tried the Netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
    > > Uninstalled Remote Differential Compression
    > > I have a 3com gigabit unmanaged switch and a 10/100 switch/router issue
    > > with
    > > both
    > > Tired copying files from an XP box on 100Mbps and don't have an issue. 70%
    > > network usage when transferring files.
    > > I'm using Cat5e I have read that Cat6 would not make a big difference so I
    > > have not purchased new cables.
    > > The transfer rate on the Vista box on HD to HD is 100MB/sec on average.
    > > Faster with larger files and slower with multiple smaller files.
    > > And the transfer rate on the server is 90MB/sec and write is about half of
    > > that. And both of the systems rate far exceed the 2-8MB/sec transfer via
    > > network. So I have no idea what else it could be other then Vista is a
    > > pile.
    > > I have not been able to try Vista to Vista transfer I would really like to
    > > see how that performs.
    > > I know that I have tried other things but I can't remember out of
    > > frustration.
    > > If anyone has any other suggestions I would love to hear them. Thanks
    > > again
    > > for everyone's help.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Matt
    > > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    > >
    > >
    > > "Keith Chilton" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Even though I haven't touched vista and have no experience in it. This
    > >> thread reinforces my belief to stay away from it until next year at
    > >> least.
    > >> The bugs and the whole "focus on graphics, GUI and the end-user"
    > >> Microsoft
    > >> initiative seems to have created some issues.
    > >>
    > >> By the way, Matt, what version of Vista are you running? And I'm sorry
    > >> your
    > >> having your problems.
    > >>
    > >> By the way, instead of copying and pasting, have you tried using XCOPY to
    > >> see if you can transfer files faster, instead of "copy and paste"? See
    > >> if
    > >> using that changes your transfer speeds and network utilization.
    > >>
    > >> I love XCOPY nested into batch scripts. It makes backups so much easier
    > >> for
    > >> the end user if all they have to do is "clicky-clicky" haha
    > >>
    > >> "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the only
    > >> > one
    > >> > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a
    > >> > 5400RPM
    > >> > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to the
    > >> > LAN. I
    > >> > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I
    > >> > want
    > >> > to
    > >> > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do
    > >> > start
    > >> > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the drive
    > >> > on
    > >> > the
    > >> > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 - 10%
    > >> > on
    > >> > both
    > >> > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the server
    > >> > from
    > >> > a
    > >> > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%. And
    > >> > that
    > >> > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files like
    > >> > MP3's
    > >> > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection. This
    > >> > is
    > >> > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100.
    > >> > Both
    > >> > way
    > >> > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista and
    > >> > I
    > >> > have
    > >> > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at my
    > >> > work.
    > >> > --
    > >> > Matt
    > >> > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "catwalker63" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> Matt piffled away vaguely:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to this
    > >> >> > question
    > >> >> > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running. Its
    > >> >> > on a
    > >> >> > P3
    > >> >> > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller
    > >> >> > installed with
    > >> >> > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and read
    > >> >> > at
    > >> >> > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM and
    > >> >> > 2
    > >> >> > of the
    > >> >> > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my
    > >> >> > Vista
    > >> >> > box to
    > >> >> > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if I'm
    > >> >> > lucky on
    > >> >> > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it
    > >> >> > transfers
    > >> >> > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of
    > >> >> > small
    > >> >> > files
    > >> >> > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on any
    > >> >> > webpage I
    > >> >> > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me nuts. I
    > >> >> > don't
    > >> >> > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs
    > >> >> > better
    > >> >> > than
    > >> >> > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only for
    > >> >> > studying
    > >> >> > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current drivers.
    > >> >> > It
    > >> >> > seems
    > >> >> > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read
    > >> >> > online.
    > >> >> > The
    > >> >> > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything
    > >> >> > please.
    > >> >> > Thanks in advance.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    > >> >> processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed of
    > >> >> the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the disparity
    > >> >> between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista box
    > >> >> are
    > >> >> a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    > >> >> suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems with
    > >> >> it?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> --
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Catwalker
    > >> >> MCNGP #43
    > >> >> www.mcngp.com
    > >> >> "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
    Matt, May 4, 2007
    #12
  13. Would packet analyzing software help in this case? Like Ethereal? I think
    that would be a good idea trying a different NIC card by the way. You almost
    need away to check out the entire protocol stack, real time. Kind of hard to
    do though.

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The NIC on the Vista box is integrated. And the best I could do would be
    > to
    > add a 10/100 card to it not another gigabit card. And I have tried without
    > the switch. The switch is a gigabit but I have the issue with 2 other
    > 10/100
    > switch/router. The only thing that I have tried as far as monitoring
    > software
    > is the performance monitor that is built into Vista and that is where I
    > have
    > been watching drive write speed and network usage. My XP box is a laptop
    > with
    > an integrated NIC and I don't have a PCMCIA card to put in to try but it
    > does
    > not have the slow transfer rate. Well it does only because it is 10/100
    > but
    > 70 - 80% usage is what I would expect on 10/100. And in all of this I'm
    > not
    > looking for that kind of usage on gigabit it would be nice but at 70 - 80%
    > on
    > gigabit would be about 90MB/sec which my hardware is not going to be able
    > to
    > do but I figured 40% at least which is 50MB/sec. The event viewer doesn't
    > really have anything that jumps out at me. Is there anything that I should
    > be
    > looking for? If figure that if there is an issue it would list it as a
    > warning or error. The other thing that really is strange is when I copy
    > files off the Vista box to the server from the server the transfer is
    > steady.
    > But from the server to the vista box from vista the transfer is not steady
    > and what I mean is that it will run up to 8 then to 0 then back up and
    > down
    > the entire time. So all of this leads me to believe one of two things. Bad
    > NIC on my desktop or Vista is the whole issue. I think the next set is to
    > try
    > a different NIC. It is going to be a 10/100 card. So if I have the same
    > issue
    > with that card I would venture to say that it is the OS and not a hardware
    > related issue. Also I tried different cables albeit cat5e they were
    > different
    > cables and same issue. I also made sure that the switch and router were
    > not
    > getting hot and they are not anything but warm. I just checked the event
    > viewer and there is nothing in there leading me to believe there is an
    > issue
    > with software as it doesn't show any errors or warnings that have anything
    > to
    > do with the networking aspect except for when I switched cables.
    > --
    > Matt
    > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >
    >
    > "Keith Chilton" wrote:
    >
    >> You mentioned a switch in there. Have you tried your connection without
    >> the
    >> switch between you wherever it's plugged into. Maybe the switch is
    >> running
    >> into issues with Vista's protocol stack. Have you tried any network
    >> analyzing software to monitor your adapter (if it's not integrated into
    >> the
    >> Motherboard)? Have you tried using the adapter in an XP machine? Switch
    >> it
    >> out, what the heck. At least you will have ruled out the adapter as the
    >> potential problem. If it's ok put it back in the Vista machine. I would
    >> try
    >> ruling out all possible hardware problems at this stage in the game. If
    >> all
    >> of that fails, i would look for some network card analyzing software out
    >> there. How does the Event log look by the way? Anything weird going on in
    >> there when you copy and paste?
    >>
    >> "Matt" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Well here is the list of things that I have tried to the best of my
    >> > memory
    >> > First let me list what my computers are that I'm using. I have a Vista
    >> > Ultimate Box on an Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig or Ram with 2 WD SATA2 drives
    >> > no
    >> > Raid and an integrated Broadcom Gigabit adapter. A Win2k3 Enterprise
    >> > server
    >> > running on a P3 750 384 Meg of Ram with at PCI SATA1 card with a WD
    >> > 160Gig
    >> > and an Intel Pro 1000 GT Nic.
    >> > All hardware on both machines has the latest drivers.
    >> > I have tried flow control Tx, Rx/Tx, auto, off with no change
    >> > I have tried the Netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
    >> > Uninstalled Remote Differential Compression
    >> > I have a 3com gigabit unmanaged switch and a 10/100 switch/router issue
    >> > with
    >> > both
    >> > Tired copying files from an XP box on 100Mbps and don't have an issue.
    >> > 70%
    >> > network usage when transferring files.
    >> > I'm using Cat5e I have read that Cat6 would not make a big difference
    >> > so I
    >> > have not purchased new cables.
    >> > The transfer rate on the Vista box on HD to HD is 100MB/sec on average.
    >> > Faster with larger files and slower with multiple smaller files.
    >> > And the transfer rate on the server is 90MB/sec and write is about half
    >> > of
    >> > that. And both of the systems rate far exceed the 2-8MB/sec transfer
    >> > via
    >> > network. So I have no idea what else it could be other then Vista is a
    >> > pile.
    >> > I have not been able to try Vista to Vista transfer I would really like
    >> > to
    >> > see how that performs.
    >> > I know that I have tried other things but I can't remember out of
    >> > frustration.
    >> > If anyone has any other suggestions I would love to hear them. Thanks
    >> > again
    >> > for everyone's help.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Matt
    >> > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Keith Chilton" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Even though I haven't touched vista and have no experience in it. This
    >> >> thread reinforces my belief to stay away from it until next year at
    >> >> least.
    >> >> The bugs and the whole "focus on graphics, GUI and the end-user"
    >> >> Microsoft
    >> >> initiative seems to have created some issues.
    >> >>
    >> >> By the way, Matt, what version of Vista are you running? And I'm sorry
    >> >> your
    >> >> having your problems.
    >> >>
    >> >> By the way, instead of copying and pasting, have you tried using XCOPY
    >> >> to
    >> >> see if you can transfer files faster, instead of "copy and paste"?
    >> >> See
    >> >> if
    >> >> using that changes your transfer speeds and network utilization.
    >> >>
    >> >> I love XCOPY nested into batch scripts. It makes backups so much
    >> >> easier
    >> >> for
    >> >> the end user if all they have to do is "clicky-clicky" haha
    >> >>
    >> >> "Matt" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > Well there are a few reasons. I have read online that I'm not the
    >> >> > only
    >> >> > one
    >> >> > with this issue. I have an old P4 laptop running XP Pro that has a
    >> >> > 5400RPM
    >> >> > drive that has about 70 - 80% network usage on 100Mb connection to
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > LAN. I
    >> >> > tried a few other things that make this situation very strange. If I
    >> >> > want
    >> >> > to
    >> >> > copy a file off of the Vista box to the server. From the server I do
    >> >> > start
    >> >> > run \\name\share and then copy the file and then paste it to the
    >> >> > drive
    >> >> > on
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > server the speed is doubled. Network usage goes from 2 -4% to 8 -
    >> >> > 10%
    >> >> > on
    >> >> > both
    >> >> > computers. If I copy the same file to the same location on the
    >> >> > server
    >> >> > from
    >> >> > a
    >> >> > mapped drive on the vista box it is slow. Network usage is 2 - 4%.
    >> >> > And
    >> >> > that
    >> >> > is with one file that is 750MB. If I copy a bunch of smaller files
    >> >> > like
    >> >> > MP3's
    >> >> > it is .5% - 1%. And keep in mind this is on a gigabit connection.
    >> >> > This
    >> >> > is
    >> >> > totally unacceptable. And it has the same results on gigabit or 100.
    >> >> > Both
    >> >> > way
    >> >> > are switched not a hub. And the kicker is that at work I run vista
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > I
    >> >> > have
    >> >> > the same slow transfers here as I do at home. We also run gigabit at
    >> >> > my
    >> >> > work.
    >> >> > --
    >> >> > Matt
    >> >> > A+, MCP, and MCDST
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "catwalker63" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Matt piffled away vaguely:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > I was hoping that some one out there would have some answers to
    >> >> >> > this
    >> >> >> > question
    >> >> >> > or atleast ran into it as well. I have a Win2k server running.
    >> >> >> > Its
    >> >> >> > on a
    >> >> >> > P3
    >> >> >> > 750 384Meg of Ram and it runs great. I have a SATA2 controller
    >> >> >> > installed with
    >> >> >> > a 160Gig WD drive. HDtach shows the write speed at 45MB/sec and
    >> >> >> > read
    >> >> >> > at
    >> >> >> > 90MB/sec. I also have a Vista box Athlon 64 X2 4200 2Gig of RAM
    >> >> >> > and
    >> >> >> > 2
    >> >> >> > of the
    >> >> >> > same WD drives. Both on gigabit network. If I copy files from my
    >> >> >> > Vista
    >> >> >> > box to
    >> >> >> > a mapped drive on the server it transfers at 2MB/sec maybe 4 if
    >> >> >> > I'm
    >> >> >> > lucky on
    >> >> >> > if I copy from the mapped drive on the server to the Vista box it
    >> >> >> > transfers
    >> >> >> > at 8 - 10MB/Sec. This is just unacceptable. It is with a bunch of
    >> >> >> > small
    >> >> >> > files
    >> >> >> > and also large files (700Meg) I have tried everything listed on
    >> >> >> > any
    >> >> >> > webpage I
    >> >> >> > could find. Nothing seems to help. This is really driving me
    >> >> >> > nuts. I
    >> >> >> > don't
    >> >> >> > think that bottle neck is on the server. It is snappy and runs
    >> >> >> > better
    >> >> >> > than
    >> >> >> > expected on what hardware it has. I do run IIS, DNS and AD. Only
    >> >> >> > for
    >> >> >> > studying
    >> >> >> > for tests. Everything in both systems have the most current
    >> >> >> > drivers.
    >> >> >> > It
    >> >> >> > seems
    >> >> >> > that this is a Vista issue according to everything I have read
    >> >> >> > online.
    >> >> >> > The
    >> >> >> > transfers do not stop just slow. Any ideas, suggestions, anything
    >> >> >> > please.
    >> >> >> > Thanks in advance.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> I know the speed of a computer is a function of the speed of the
    >> >> >> processor, number of processors, amount and speed of RAM, and speed
    >> >> >> of
    >> >> >> the drive. I can't say for sure but it is possible that the
    >> >> >> disparity
    >> >> >> between the hardware on the server and the hardware on the Vista
    >> >> >> box
    >> >> >> are
    >> >> >> a large influence here. You also don't state specific reasons why
    >> >> >> suspect Vista, so I'm wondering why you are suspecting problems
    >> >> >> with
    >> >> >> it?
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> --
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Catwalker
    >> >> >> MCNGP #43
    >> >> >> www.mcngp.com
    >> >> >> "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    Keith Chilton, May 4, 2007
    #13
  14. "Keith Chilton" <> wrote in message
    news:%23$ry$...
    > Would packet analyzing software help in this case? Like Ethereal? I think
    > that would be a good idea trying a different NIC card by the way. You
    > almost need away to check out the entire protocol stack, real time. Kind
    > of hard to do though.


    That's an excellent idea. Note that Ethereal is now "Wireshark".

    You can capture some traffic, then check the timings to see where the
    slowdown is. Watch for excessive delays, retrys, etc.
    Michael D. Hensley, May 4, 2007
    #14
  15. I didnt know that Michael. I haven't used it in FOREVER. Thanks!

    "Michael D. Hensley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Keith Chilton" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23$ry$...
    >> Would packet analyzing software help in this case? Like Ethereal? I think
    >> that would be a good idea trying a different NIC card by the way. You
    >> almost need away to check out the entire protocol stack, real time. Kind
    >> of hard to do though.

    >
    > That's an excellent idea. Note that Ethereal is now "Wireshark".
    >
    > You can capture some traffic, then check the timings to see where the
    > slowdown is. Watch for excessive delays, retrys, etc.
    Keith Chilton, May 5, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RK

    Extremely Slow LAN transfers on WINXP Pro. Ed.

    RK, Jul 3, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    6,952
  2. RK

    Slow File Transfers with WINXP Pro Ed

    RK, Jul 20, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,810
    Clark
    Jul 21, 2005
  3. Nick

    Usenet -- Slow Transfers

    Nick, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,710
  4. Tim
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,993
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    808
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page