Network latency: W2K Svr vs XP Pro

[Guest]

We made some recent changes and are having response problems.

Changed from: Client/server with a P3 domain controller as server with 500Mb
RAM and running W2K Server OS.
Changed to: Peer-to-Peer by replacing the P3 with a dual Xeon, 2Gb RAM,
mirrored SATA drives running XP Pro Sp2. It is dedicated and only operates
as a file server.
There are three workstations, all of which stayed the same. All have 1Gb
RAM and run XP Pro SP2.
The network stayed the same: Ethernet thru a 10/100 router and switch.
There is minimal network activity. Only files from 2 applications are on
the server.

Here’s my response problem:
Under the old configuration, when a workstation accessed the folder on the
server (W2K) , we had instant response in displaying the folder contents.
For example, a folder was accessed through a mapped drive, is about 40 Mb in
size and holds 3000 portfolios. Content was displayed at the workstation with
no delay.

Under the new configuration, using exactly the same techniques, we get a
long (sometimes 20 seconds) delay before the folder contents gets displayed.
We see this delay in applications but this same delay is seen even when using
Windows Explorer and browsing to the folder. The issue seems to be the
number of files in the folder, not the size of the files. Windows Explorer
will display 6 files totaling 30 Mb very quickly but 1000 files totaling 20
Mb displays only after a delay.
When at the server keyboard, there is no delay when accessing these folders
using Windows Explorer.

Thinking it was the mapping, I changed all access to use UNC. No change.
I did notice that I get almost instant response if I access the ‘share’
through ‘My Network Places’. That seems to use UNC. But if I take the exact
UNC resolution shown in the address bar and try to get to it using ‘run’, I’m
right back to the delay.

I’ve worked with Dell (the server) and Microsoft. I’ve changed all the
hardware, cables, and reloaded all the drivers. Everyone sees the problem
but no one has a fix. Microsoft, at the highest support level, had me show
it to them 3 times, put me on hold for 10 minutes and then told me ‘that’s
how it works’. They were not able to explain why ‘My Network Places‘ gives
me the response I want but nothing else does.

Should I really expect worse response with XP than with W2K Server?

Has anyone else seen this? Fixed this? Any suggestions appreciated…

 

[Guest]

Yes I've encountered it, and presently I don't know of an answer.

One of my clients has ~40,000 smallish files on an NT4 server running on a
2GHz server. It takes about 10-15 secs to open a directory-listing. If I
could get this down to 5s or so it would greatly improve workability, but so
far no joy.

I was considering putting-in 2003 Server with some heavyweight hardware, but
from your experience it seems it wouldn't solve this issue. Useful to know
that anyway!

As you found, on the server console the root folder-structure opens very
quickly, it's the network users who suffer the delays.

Other avenues worth exploring would be Gigabit ethernet, or some form of
local caching. I suspect some kind of caching may be involved with My NetWork
Places responsing more quickly.

I experimented with XP's Indexing service, but that only seemed to make
matters worse, not better.

A furhter thought is that a bespoke file-explorer could be written, which
navigates using a database-driven file list. Lot of work to write it, though,
and in any case wouldn't help Word/Excel dialogs, which suffer the same issue
as Explorer.

 

[Chuck]

We made some recent changes and are having response problems.

Changed from: Client/server with a P3 domain controller as server with 500Mb
RAM and running W2K Server OS.
Changed to: Peer-to-Peer by replacing the P3 with a dual Xeon, 2Gb RAM,
mirrored SATA drives running XP Pro Sp2. It is dedicated and only operates
as a file server.
There are three workstations, all of which stayed the same. All have 1Gb
RAM and run XP Pro SP2.
The network stayed the same: Ethernet thru a 10/100 router and switch.
There is minimal network activity. Only files from 2 applications are on
the server.

Here’s my response problem:
Under the old configuration, when a workstation accessed the folder on the
server (W2K) , we had instant response in displaying the folder contents.
For example, a folder was accessed through a mapped drive, is about 40 Mb in
size and holds 3000 portfolios. Content was displayed at the workstation with
no delay.

Under the new configuration, using exactly the same techniques, we get a
long (sometimes 20 seconds) delay before the folder contents gets displayed.
We see this delay in applications but this same delay is seen even when using
Windows Explorer and browsing to the folder. The issue seems to be the
number of files in the folder, not the size of the files. Windows Explorer
will display 6 files totaling 30 Mb very quickly but 1000 files totaling 20
Mb displays only after a delay.
When at the server keyboard, there is no delay when accessing these folders
using Windows Explorer.

Thinking it was the mapping, I changed all access to use UNC. No change.
I did notice that I get almost instant response if I access the ‘share’
through ‘My Network Places’. That seems to use UNC. But if I take the exact
UNC resolution shown in the address bar and try to get to it using ‘run’, I’m
right back to the delay.

I’ve worked with Dell (the server) and Microsoft. I’ve changed all the
hardware, cables, and reloaded all the drivers. Everyone sees the problem
but no one has a fix. Microsoft, at the highest support level, had me show
it to them 3 times, put me on hold for 10 minutes and then told me ‘that’s
how it works’. They were not able to explain why ‘My Network Places‘ gives
me the response I want but nothing else does.

Should I really expect worse response with XP than with W2K Server?

Has anyone else seen this? Fixed this? Any suggestions appreciated…

Don,

Noting Ian's response, which is all too typical here, I sort of wonder whether
your experience might be caused by downgrading from a domain to a workgroup (why
did you do that anyway?).

One of the slightly invisible advantages of a domain over a workgroup is the
ability to setup a domain DNS server for local name resolution, and dispense
with NetBT altogether. If you read thru some of the posts in this forum, you'll
note a few people who don't care for NetBIOS Over TCP.

If you have a domain DNS server, you can use Server Message Blocks hosted over
IP, and do without NetBT. With a peer-peer network (don't confuse this with
peer-peer name resolution though), you'll need NetBT.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/07/advanced-windows-networking-using.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/07/advanced-windows-networking-using.html

When you tested your UNC shortcuts, were you using name or IP addresses?

You are using IP for the network, right?

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

Don,

Noting Ian's response, which is all too typical here, I sort of wonder whether
your experience might be caused by downgrading from a domain to a workgroup (why
did you do that anyway?).

One of the slightly invisible advantages of a domain over a workgroup is the
ability to setup a domain DNS server for local name resolution, and dispense
with NetBT altogether. If you read thru some of the posts in this forum, you'll
note a few people who don't care for NetBIOS Over TCP.

If you have a domain DNS server, you can use Server Message Blocks hosted over
IP, and do without NetBT. With a peer-peer network (don't confuse this with
peer-peer name resolution though), you'll need NetBT.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/07/advanced-windows-networking-using.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/07/advanced-windows-networking-using.html

When you tested your UNC shortcuts, were you using name or IP addresses?

You are using IP for the network, right?

I think the problem is more with Windows Explorer than anything else. I
can bring up a shared directory with over 2,000 folders in Explorer and
it takes about 15 seconds or more to start displaying. Using the
command line it displays the folders as fast as the command window can
display them. On a related note using Explorer to copy a large number
of files and directories is very painful, even on the host machine.
Using XCopy to do the same thing takes a few percent of the time.

 

[Chuck]

I think the problem is more with Windows Explorer than anything else. I
can bring up a shared directory with over 2,000 folders in Explorer and
it takes about 15 seconds or more to start displaying. Using the
command line it displays the folders as fast as the command window can
display them. On a related note using Explorer to copy a large number
of files and directories is very painful, even on the host machine.
Using XCopy to do the same thing takes a few percent of the time.

I've seen quite a few threads discussing this problem, and yes, it usually
involves Windows Explorer. But Windows Explorer is a client process. What
changed here was the server.

I think that we need a server expert here, to tell us what the difference is
between Server 2003 and XP, not in how they serve content, but how they serve
enumerations of content. Maybe this involves the browser server processes even.

Barring that, and seeing that the OP reported that enumerating the contents in a
UNC share is the same as in the mapped share, I have to wonder if the OP tried a
UNC share using an IP address rather than the computer name.

And I was sort of hoping that the OP would tell us why he spent money on a new
server, with the bells and whistles, and loaded it with XP, which isn't a server
OS. I cannot believe that Dell didn't say anything. You don't take the engine
out of a Volkswagen, put it into a Mac truck, and expect to get your cargo
delivered to the warehouse reliably.

And yes, I've noted the advantage of using XCopy. If I had more than a G or so
of data, I wouldn't copy it using Explorer drag and drop.