We have a main office and a couple of satelite offices that are connected
back to our main office by a couple of WAN links that have been functioning
well for several years. We are running a Windows 2000 native active
directory domain with domain controllers in each satellite office. Our
clients are all Windows XP\ professional.

We have recently discovered that when connecting to a share from the main
office to a remote office that we have far better luck connecting with a
mapped drive rather than setting up a URL through "My Network Places" If we
connect to a share such as \\remoteservername\sharename through the browser
or explorer or through a link set up through My Network Places, it will
literally take about 10 times longer to connect than if we set up a mapped
drive letter to the same share name. We have also tried setting up the link
through the use of the server IP address instead of the server name so it
would seem that we have ruled out name resolution problems. I have tried
this from multiple computers in this office with the same result. We do have
Norton Antivirus Corporate edition loaded on each workstation and I thought
that possibly the antivirus was treating a UNC name differently than a drive
letter and causing the delay. However, I tried the same thing from a Windows
2000 member server in the main office which was not running an antivirus
program and came up with the same results.

In searching for the answer to this problem, I have noticed that the bulk of
the postings that I have seen seem to indicate that a large number of people
are having just the opposite problem where drive mappings are reacting much
slower than a UNC.

If I don't hear anything, I may try sniffing the network traffic and see if
I can determine what happens differently when trying to connect by the two
different methods.

If anyone can help me with this, I would certainly appreciate it.

Rod Miller

Do you have the nwclient on your machines or something Novell related
installed, is that why you posted here?

--
Thanks,
Keith V. Klenke
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.abend.org Giving Novell that "slash" feeling
--------------------------------------------------


"news.microsoft.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> We have a main office and a couple of satelite offices that are connected
> back to our main office by a couple of WAN links that have been
functioning
> well for several years. We are running a Windows 2000 native active
> directory domain with domain controllers in each satellite office. Our
> clients are all Windows XP\ professional.
>
> We have recently discovered that when connecting to a share from the main
> office to a remote office that we have far better luck connecting with a
> mapped drive rather than setting up a URL through "My Network Places" If
we
> connect to a share such as \\remoteservername\sharename through the
browser
> or explorer or through a link set up through My Network Places, it will
> literally take about 10 times longer to connect than if we set up a mapped
> drive letter to the same share name. We have also tried setting up the
link
> through the use of the server IP address instead of the server name so it
> would seem that we have ruled out name resolution problems. I have tried
> this from multiple computers in this office with the same result. We do
have
> Norton Antivirus Corporate edition loaded on each workstation and I
thought
> that possibly the antivirus was treating a UNC name differently than a
drive
> letter and causing the delay. However, I tried the same thing from a
Windows
> 2000 member server in the main office which was not running an antivirus
> program and came up with the same results.
>
> In searching for the answer to this problem, I have noticed that the bulk
of
> the postings that I have seen seem to indicate that a large number of
people
> are having just the opposite problem where drive mappings are reacting
much
> slower than a UNC.
>
> If I don't hear anything, I may try sniffing the network traffic and see
if
> I can determine what happens differently when trying to connect by the two
> different methods.
>
> If anyone can help me with this, I would certainly appreciate it.
>
> Rod Miller
>
>

I realized AFTER I had posted that I had picked up the wrong group. I have
posted elsewhere.

Thanks

"Keith V. Klenke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do you have the nwclient on your machines or something Novell related
> installed, is that why you posted here?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Keith V. Klenke
> --------------------------------------------------
> http://www.abend.org Giving Novell that "slash" feeling
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "news.microsoft.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > We have a main office and a couple of satelite offices that are
connected
> > back to our main office by a couple of WAN links that have been
> functioning
> > well for several years. We are running a Windows 2000 native active
> > directory domain with domain controllers in each satellite office. Our
> > clients are all Windows XP\ professional.
> >
> > We have recently discovered that when connecting to a share from the
main
> > office to a remote office that we have far better luck connecting with a
> > mapped drive rather than setting up a URL through "My Network Places" If
> we
> > connect to a share such as \\remoteservername\sharename through the
> browser
> > or explorer or through a link set up through My Network Places, it will
> > literally take about 10 times longer to connect than if we set up a
mapped
> > drive letter to the same share name. We have also tried setting up the
> link
> > through the use of the server IP address instead of the server name so
it
> > would seem that we have ruled out name resolution problems. I have tried
> > this from multiple computers in this office with the same result. We do
> have
> > Norton Antivirus Corporate edition loaded on each workstation and I
> thought
> > that possibly the antivirus was treating a UNC name differently than a
> drive
> > letter and causing the delay. However, I tried the same thing from a
> Windows
> > 2000 member server in the main office which was not running an antivirus
> > program and came up with the same results.
> >
> > In searching for the answer to this problem, I have noticed that the
bulk
> of
> > the postings that I have seen seem to indicate that a large number of
> people
> > are having just the opposite problem where drive mappings are reacting
> much
> > slower than a UNC.
> >
> > If I don't hear anything, I may try sniffing the network traffic and see
> if
> > I can determine what happens differently when trying to connect by the
two
> > different methods.
> >
> > If anyone can help me with this, I would certainly appreciate it.
> >
> > Rod Miller
> >
> >
>
>

[teamanx]

I had the same problem as you. I first had a DC running Server 2003 with AD, DNS, DHCP and WINS, which was also a file server. I decided to remove WINS, since I did not use it at all. But as soon as I did this, UNC connections to the shared folders on the server got extremely slow, while mapped drives kept as fast as before.

I just re-installed WINS, rebooted the server, and the following day all connections worked fine. I had no need of making any further configuration.

Hope it helps. Greetings from Madrid.