Slow perfomance with mapped network drives

[Sue Whitting]

Using Windows 2000 pc on an NT domain.

Job takes 55 mins to run on an NT workstation using a
mapped network drive (to a Windows 2000 workstation) for
its input and output.

Same job takes over an hour to run on the Windows 2000
workstation with mapped network drive (to itself. [Takes
18 mins if run totally standalone]

Same job takes 5+ hours (!) when run on Windows XP
workstation with mapped network drive (to Windows 2000
workstation) [Takes 8 mins if run totally standalone on XP]

Tried using IP address in share instead of machine name -
saves 10 mins or so.

Different hardware platforms - so I expect some variation,
but the NT machine is the slowest and oldest pc - yet runs
fastest whilst the XP machine is the newest and fastest -
yet runs slowest. All pcs have dual processors.

Mirgration to 2003 Server on the domain is planned for
later in the year. Will this improve performance across
mapped network drives? What can I do in the short term
other - than the "standalone" option - to significantly
reduce both the 5 hrs on XP and 1+hr on 2000?

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Using Windows 2000 pc on an NT domain.

Job takes 55 mins to run on an NT workstation using a
mapped network drive (to a Windows 2000 workstation) for
its input and output.

Same job takes over an hour to run on the Windows 2000
workstation with mapped network drive (to itself. [Takes
18 mins if run totally standalone]

Same job takes 5+ hours (!) when run on Windows XP
workstation with mapped network drive (to Windows 2000
workstation) [Takes 8 mins if run totally standalone on XP]

Tried using IP address in share instead of machine name -
saves 10 mins or so.

Different hardware platforms - so I expect some variation,
but the NT machine is the slowest and oldest pc - yet runs
fastest whilst the XP machine is the newest and fastest -
yet runs slowest. All pcs have dual processors.

Mirgration to 2003 Server on the domain is planned for
later in the year. Will this improve performance across
mapped network drives? What can I do in the short term
other - than the "standalone" option - to significantly
reduce both the 5 hrs on XP and 1+hr on 2000?

I would start at the very bottom: Check my network cabling
and network adapters. You might think that XP performs slowly
whereas in fact it could be a marginal cable or card that connects
the WinXP PC with the network.

 

[Guest]

Tried different media converters and switches and it made
no difference.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----

Using Windows 2000 pc on an NT domain.

Job takes 55 mins to run on an NT workstation using a
mapped network drive (to a Windows 2000 workstation) for
its input and output.

Same job takes over an hour to run on the Windows 2000
workstation with mapped network drive (to itself. [Takes
18 mins if run totally standalone]

Same job takes 5+ hours (!) when run on Windows XP
workstation with mapped network drive (to Windows 2000
workstation) [Takes 8 mins if run totally standalone on XP]

Tried using IP address in share instead of machine name -
saves 10 mins or so.

Different hardware platforms - so I expect some variation,
but the NT machine is the slowest and oldest pc - yet runs
fastest whilst the XP machine is the newest and fastest -
yet runs slowest. All pcs have dual processors.

Mirgration to 2003 Server on the domain is planned for
later in the year. Will this improve performance across
mapped network drives? What can I do in the short term
other - than the "standalone" option - to significantly
reduce both the 5 hrs on XP and 1+hr on 2000?

I would start at the very bottom: Check my network cabling
and network adapters. You might think that XP performs slowly
whereas in fact it could be a marginal cable or card that connects
the WinXP PC with the network.


.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

- Cabling?
- Network adapters?

Tried different media converters and switches and it made
no difference.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----

Using Windows 2000 pc on an NT domain.

Job takes 55 mins to run on an NT workstation using a
mapped network drive (to a Windows 2000 workstation) for
its input and output.

Same job takes over an hour to run on the Windows 2000
workstation with mapped network drive (to itself. [Takes
18 mins if run totally standalone]

Same job takes 5+ hours (!) when run on Windows XP
workstation with mapped network drive (to Windows 2000
workstation) [Takes 8 mins if run totally standalone on XP]

Tried using IP address in share instead of machine name -
saves 10 mins or so.

Different hardware platforms - so I expect some variation,
but the NT machine is the slowest and oldest pc - yet runs
fastest whilst the XP machine is the newest and fastest -
yet runs slowest. All pcs have dual processors.

Mirgration to 2003 Server on the domain is planned for
later in the year. Will this improve performance across
mapped network drives? What can I do in the short term
other - than the "standalone" option - to significantly
reduce both the 5 hrs on XP and 1+hr on 2000?

I would start at the very bottom: Check my network cabling
and network adapters. You might think that XP performs slowly
whereas in fact it could be a marginal cable or card that connects
the WinXP PC with the network.


.

 

[William Cooper]

Update your NIC drivers to the latest all round, if that does not work try a
new card. I have had problems with one rouge card creating multicasts and
slowing down the whole network, hard one to find though,

- Cabling?
- Network adapters?

Tried different media converters and switches and it made
no difference.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----

Using Windows 2000 pc on an NT domain.

Job takes 55 mins to run on an NT workstation using a
mapped network drive (to a Windows 2000 workstation) for
its input and output.

Same job takes over an hour to run on the Windows 2000
workstation with mapped network drive (to itself. [Takes
18 mins if run totally standalone]

Same job takes 5+ hours (!) when run on Windows XP
workstation with mapped network drive (to Windows 2000
workstation) [Takes 8 mins if run totally standalone on XP]

Tried using IP address in share instead of machine name -
saves 10 mins or so.

Different hardware platforms - so I expect some variation,
but the NT machine is the slowest and oldest pc - yet runs
fastest whilst the XP machine is the newest and fastest -
yet runs slowest. All pcs have dual processors.

Mirgration to 2003 Server on the domain is planned for
later in the year. Will this improve performance across
mapped network drives? What can I do in the short term
other - than the "standalone" option - to significantly
reduce both the 5 hrs on XP and 1+hr on 2000?

I would start at the very bottom: Check my network cabling
and network adapters. You might think that XP performs slowly
whereas in fact it could be a marginal cable or card that connects
the WinXP PC with the network.


.