Painfully slow copying of files from XP to w2k server

[Joe]

I have 1 win2k server and 1 XP pro PC both hooked into a 4 port 100mb hub.

I am trying to copy a large number of files (3-4gb worth) and it is
painfully slow. The taskmanager/networks shows network utilisation at 1% to
4%, and both PC's are pretty fast with decent EIDE disks, so what is the
hold up? Neither PC is doing anything else and there is no other network
traffic - what gives?

 

[Joe]

I have 1 win2k server and 1 XP pro PC both hooked into a 4 port 100mb hub.

I am trying to copy a large number of files (3-4gb worth) and it is
painfully slow. The taskmanager/networks shows network utilisation at 1% to
4%, and both PC's are pretty fast with decent EIDE disks, so what is the
hold up? Neither PC is doing anything else and there is no other network
traffic - what gives?

Further more... When I copy a 5mb file from the XP workstation to the w2k
server (using explorer to copy from local to mapped drive) it takes
15seconds. When I go to the server and copy the file from the workstation
(using explorer, from mapped to local drive) it takes 1m08s... why the big
difference? And does 15s seem slow to copy a 5mb file accross an empty
100mb network?

 

[Marc Reynolds [MSFT]]

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

321098 Slow network performance occurs if you copy files to a Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321098


--

Thanks,
Marc Reynolds
Microsoft Technical Support

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Jetro]

Check NIC's advanced settings.

 

[Joe]

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

321098 Slow network performance occurs if you copy files to a Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321098

ok, the SMB thing didn't make the slightest bit of difference, but changeing
the TCPDELACKTICKS to 0 speeded up the XP-->W2k push a little bit, and the
W2k<--XP pull a LOT (so they are roughly equal now).

Eg. copying 1 x 50mb file from XP to W2k (from W2k explorer) took 2m33s, now
21s!!! copying the same 50mb file from XP to W2k (from XP explorer) took
30s, now 19s... Similar results for multiple smaller files.

But this still seems pretty lame when you look at the transfer rates -

Network transfer capacity - 100mb/s
EDIE controller transfer capacity - 100mb/s
Actual apparent transfer speed - 2.6mb/s (50mb file / 19s)

So where is the bottleneck? The componants should be able to handle much
higher speeds, but nothing is getting stressed - cpu utilisation is minimal,
network usage is minimal, plenty of RAM, disk and controller should be able
to cope... why isn't the data wooshing across?

 

[Bob I]

Say Joe, the NIC rate is megaBIT per sec NOT megaBYTE per sec. With no
overhead you would have 12 mega BYTE data x-fer rate. The very best NIC
card setups run about 6-7 megaBYTE per sec in a test environment.