Bandwidth issue - XP to Win2K3 slow, Win2k3 to XP Fast?

[Scott Townsend]

We have noticed that transferring files to the Server seems a bit slow. I
ran some simple test and found that the downloading files from the server is
fine

Server -> XP
55 Meg file 7 seconds
avg tx 3,000 to 6000 Kb/s

XP -> Server -> XP
55 Meg file 120 seconds
avg tx 300 to 600 Kb/s

Why the Difference in the Speed? Is this a setting on the server, network
or client?

Thanks,
Scott<-

 

[Phillip Windell]

It could be this:

321169 - Slow SMB Performance When You Copy Files from Windows XP to a
Windows 2000 Domain
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321169


--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

 

[Guest]

Check your NIC settings and change them to 100 Full Duplex if they aren't.
Also check the port settings on your hub/switch(if it is manageable) and make
them make the NIC settings.

 

[Guest]

That would be really cumbersome though if they have several 1000 PCs on
stackable switches/hubs. Best to leave it Auto and the NIC will pick up the
speed from the switch/hub.

Has something changed or has it always been like this? If it's always been
like this, I'd check the switch or manageable hub.

 

[Scott Townsend]

Sad to say, I'm not sure how long its been like this. If its new, or if we
hare just more impatient now that we are working with large files.

Did some other testing in a different part of the building and they are at
the 2 minute mark with both transmit and receive from the server. They are
connected almost the same as the first PC I tested, the only difference is
they are on a Stacked unmanaged switch with fiber uplink, and I'm on the
switch that has a direct fiber uplink.

I've read the KBs on the transferring files to/from DCs, though the servers
I'm testing with are member servers and not DCs. Will that make a
difference. I'll see if I can find a Win2K server and see if it is the same
as the 2003 server.

Thanks,
Scott-

 

[Scott Townsend]

So when I upload to the Win2K Member Server, it took only 52 seconds for the
same file, 8 seconds for the download. Its sitting in the Rack right next to
the other Win2k3 member server that took about 120 seconds.

The load on the machines are pretty minimal and are comparable hardware.

Thanks,
Scott<-

 

[Scott Townsend]

Hmmm... just for giggles I did try to copy to/from a DC

Win2k3 DC 20 seconds to upload 9 seconds to download
Win2k DC 139 seconds 10 seconds to download

They are both sitting next to each other. though are pretty different
hardware.

too wacky....

It could be this:

321169 - Slow SMB Performance When You Copy Files from Windows XP to a
Windows 2000 Domain
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321169


--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------

We have noticed that transferring files to the Server seems a bit slow. I
ran some simple test and found that the downloading files from the server is
fine

Server -> XP
55 Meg file 7 seconds
avg tx 3,000 to 6000 Kb/s

XP -> Server -> XP
55 Meg file 120 seconds
avg tx 300 to 600 Kb/s

Why the Difference in the Speed? Is this a setting on the server,
network
or client?

Thanks,
Scott<-