Slow XP to 98 copy, but only when XP controls

[Guest]

I have spent a full year trying to solve this. I even got Brian Livingston to publish some of the fixes I found for related, but different, Win98 to XP problems

Here is the problem

I have a 100baseT CAT-5 home network with a mixture of computers and operating systems (all Windows based). Everything works fine, except that file transfers between XP and older (Win95, Win98, and WinME) are about 20% of the speed as between computers with similar operating systems

But wait, the problem is even more interesting

If I copy a 40 MByte file between an XP and a Win98 computer (the direction of transfer makes no difference), and the copy is done using Windows Explorer on the XP machine, the copy is slow. If, however, I take the same file, and control the copy using Windows Explorer on the Win98 computer, the copy is lightning fast

If I copy between two XP computers, the copy is fast. If I copy between any Win95/98/ME computer, the copy is fast. The only problem (and it is a big one) is if I copy between XP and older computers and the XP computer controls

I installed Ethereal and looked at the packets. When XP controls the copy to a 98 computer, there are 0.4 second delays where nothing is happening. If I use the plot function in Ethereal, I see a flurry of activity and then everything stops, and then a flurry of activity

Things I've tried

I long ago changed the Namespace setting (that was what Brian Livingston published), and that helped the slow browsing issue. This isn't related to that. I tried using Netbeui, and that didn't help. I just was given a fairly modern, used XP computer. I formatted the hard disk and did a clean install of XP Home. Same problem. (I also have XP Pro -- same problem).

I also tried various registry settings. I set TcpDelAckTicks to zero. No change. I tried changing adaptive interrupt to disabled. No change. I tried unchecking QoS Packet Scheduler. No change. I have tried forcing the adapters on each computer (and all of them) to half duplex, and then to duplex. No change. I have made sure that the XP built-in firewall is disabled

I had expected to make my $$$ XP computer my main computer over twelve months ago, but because it is so slow, I'm still using my Win98SE computer as my main machine

The only reported solutions to this (many have reported this problem) is to upgrade the Win9x/ME computers to XP. This is an expensive proposition and, money aside, many of the computers probably don't have the horsepower and disk space for XP. However, they are working fine and doing the job, and I hate to fix what is otherwise not broke

Any ideas will be GREATLY APPRECIATED. :

 

[Bruce Waldie]

I have spent a full year trying to solve this. I even got Brian
Livingston to publish some of the fixes I found for related, but
different, Win98 to XP problems.

I share your frustration, and I have been posting frequently here lately
about what worked for me. The only thing that I can see that you might
have missed is: When you say you tried NETBEUI (not NWLINK/NetBIOS), did
you take the one that is on the XP CD? That is x:\valueadd\mst\net\netbeui
??? AND did you make sure that it was the "default" protocol, making sure
it was first in the advanced settings?

Also, one thing I discovered over the past two days, did you change the
provider order so that Microsoft Network is first?

I don't have the definitive solution yet, but those are the things that I
did, and my performance is now fine.

Let me know, please

Bruce Waldie

 

[Guest]

--> When you say you tried NETBEUI (not NWLINK/NetBIOS),
did you take the one that is on the XP CD? That is
x:\valueadd\mst\net\netbeui ??? AND did you make sure
that it was the "default" protocol, making sure it was
first in the advanced settings?

Yes. I did exactly that, and also moved it up in the
priority order.


-->Also, one thing I discovered over the past two days,
did you change the provider order so that Microsoft
Network is first?

Yes. I clicked on the up arrows to move it to the top
position.

I'd pay money to Microsoft to help me fix this, but the
dozens of people who have tried that have reported that MS
has no clue as to what to do. This is a widespread problem
in mixed, peer-to-peer networks. I can see it plain as day
on the network analyzer, but I can't figure out how to
stop it. The 0.4 second gaps are the key piece of the
puzzle, but I can't figure out what to do with this
information.

Hope someone can still help!

 

[Bob Willard]

I have spent a full year trying to solve this. I even got Brian Livingston to publish some of the fixes I found for related, but different, Win98 to XP problems.

Here is the problem:

I have a 100baseT CAT-5 home network with a mixture of computers and operating systems (all Windows based). Everything works fine, except that file transfers between XP and older (Win95, Win98, and WinME) are about 20% of the speed as between computers with similar operating systems.

But wait, the problem is even more interesting.

If I copy a 40 MByte file between an XP and a Win98 computer (the direction of transfer makes no difference), and the copy is done using Windows Explorer on the XP machine, the copy is slow. If, however, I take the same file, and control the copy using Windows Explorer on the Win98 computer, the copy is lightning fast.

If I copy between two XP computers, the copy is fast. If I copy between any Win95/98/ME computer, the copy is fast. The only problem (and it is a big one) is if I copy between XP and older computers and the XP computer controls.

I installed Ethereal and looked at the packets. When XP controls the copy to a 98 computer, there are 0.4 second delays where nothing is happening. If I use the plot function in Ethereal, I see a flurry of activity and then everything stops, and then a flurry of activity.

Things I've tried.

I long ago changed the Namespace setting (that was what Brian Livingston published), and that helped the slow browsing issue. This isn't related to that. I tried using Netbeui, and that didn't help. I just was given a fairly modern, used XP computer. I formatted the hard disk and did a clean install of XP Home. Same problem. (I also have XP Pro -- same problem).

I also tried various registry settings. I set TcpDelAckTicks to zero. No change. I tried changing adaptive interrupt to disabled. No change. I tried unchecking QoS Packet Scheduler. No change. I have tried forcing the adapters on each computer (and all of them) to half duplex, and then to duplex. No change. I have made sure that the XP built-in firewall is disabled.

I had expected to make my $$$ XP computer my main computer over twelve months ago, but because it is so slow, I'm still using my Win98SE computer as my main machine.

The only reported solutions to this (many have reported this problem) is to upgrade the Win9x/ME computers to XP. This is an expensive proposition and, money aside, many of the computers probably don't have the horsepower and disk space for XP. However, they are working fine and doing the job, and I hate to fix what is otherwise not broke.

Any ideas will be GREATLY APPRECIATED.

More things to try, based on my W9x-XP LAN: MTU, RWIN, and using the same
account on XP and W9x. Details, as posted before, follow --

Results of pushing and pulling a large (499,999,971 byte) file
using Explorer's ^C and ^V between 98$ and XP$, where 98$ is a
shared folder on a 500 MHz 256MB Athlon Win98SE box and XP$
is a shared folder on a 1460 MHz 256MB Athlon WinXP HE box.
Both boxes use 10/100 Mb/s NICs running in 100 Mb/s FDX mode,
and each NIC is connected via Cat5 cable to a LAN port of a
Linksys BEFW11S4 Switch with no other LAN traffic. The
bandwidth observed was much better than earlier measurements
between 98 and XP due, at least in part, to setting the MTU
to 1500 everywhere and (perhaps) to setting the RWINs to large
values (46720 on 98 and XP); settings courtesy of DrTCP.exe.

- Pushing on 98 from 98$ to XP$: 86 secs => 5.81 MB/s
- Pulling on 98 from XP$ to 98$: 82 secs => 6.10 MB/s
- Pulling on XP from 98$ to XP$: 159 secs => 3.14 MB/s
- Pushing on XP from XP$ to 98$: 236 secs => 2.19 MB/s

These values were achieved with the same Username/Password on
98 and XP. When logged into XP with a different Username,
pulling took >11 minutes (<0.76 MB/s) and pushing was predicted
(in XP's Copying window) as ~126 minutes (~0.06 MB/s).

For comparison, local copy speeds, using Explorer's ^C and ^V:

- Folder to folder on the same IDE HD on 98: 80 secs => 6.25 MB/s
- Folder to folder on different HDs on 98: 40 secs => 12.50 MB/s
(Both HDs are IDE, each on its own IDE bus)
- Folder to nul on 98 (using a DOS window): 27 secs => 18.52 MB/s

- Folder to folder on the same IDE HD on XP: 59 secs => 8.47 MB/s
- Folder to nul on XP (using a CMD window): 13 secs => 38.46 MB/s

 

[Guest]

"More things to try, based on my W9x-XP LAN: MTU, RWIN, and using the same
account on XP and W9x. "

Well, I downloaded DrTCP.exe and set MTU to 1500 and RWIN to the max (65535). Unfortunately, no change.

I do think that if I ever find a solution (and I'm beginning to think that there is a basic incompatibility between Win9x and WinXP that Microsoft can't fix), it will have something to do with one of these three things:

Packet size (SMB, MTU, RWIN, I don't know, but something to do with the size of packets);

Date/Time stamps (WinXP uses different date/time precision, and a program called "Second Copy" has problems resolving whether dates and times between files are the same or different)

High Rate of Collisions on 100-Megabit Networks. This is KB315237, but I can't find a fix for my network adapter. It sure sounds like the problem I'm having.

 

[Bob Willard]

"More things to try, based on my W9x-XP LAN: MTU, RWIN, and using the same
account on XP and W9x. "

Well, I downloaded DrTCP.exe and set MTU to 1500 and RWIN to the max (65535). Unfortunately, no change.

I do think that if I ever find a solution (and I'm beginning to think that there is a basic incompatibility between Win9x and WinXP that Microsoft can't fix), it will have something to do with one of these three things:

Packet size (SMB, MTU, RWIN, I don't know, but something to do with the size of packets);

Date/Time stamps (WinXP uses different date/time precision, and a program called "Second Copy" has problems resolving whether dates and times between files are the same or different)

High Rate of Collisions on 100-Megabit Networks. This is KB315237, but I can't find a fix for my network adapter. It sure sounds like the problem I'm having.

Of my 3 suggestions, the one that did -- for sure -- make a big difference
was using the same account on both PCs. I'll be interested to see what
you report from trying that.

 

[Parish]

Don't be too sure about that. This, like many other threads (and
webpages) on this problem all seem to be between an XP machine and a W9x
(or occassionally W2K) machine, but I have the very same problem with an
all XP network, comprising:

REDSHIFT - Dual Athlon MP2800+, 1.5GB RAM, U160 SCSI disks

MARDER - Athlon 700, 512MB, IDE disks

LAPTOP - P4 Mobile 2GHz, 512MB, IDE disks

All machines have 100Mbps NICs and are running XP Pro + SP1 + all
current patches/hotfixes (i.e. are running identical OSes).

Copying files, either way, between MARDER and LAPTOP is blisteringly
fast, >70Mbps. Copying files *from* REDSHIFT to either of the other
machines is equally fast, but copying files from MARDER or LAPTOP *to*
REDSHIFT is painfully slow, no faster than 4Mbps and ~1Mbps average.

It doesn't matter which machine the copy is run from, the results are
the same. I get the same result using XCOPY in a Command window.

One interesting twist though; I d/l a copy of Raccoonworks SpeedTest,
<http://www.raccoonworks.com/>, ran the server on MARDER and the client
on REDSHIFT and got 30-40Mbps. OK, not as fast as the other two machines
but significantly better. This makes me wonder whether it is really a
networking problem at all but a filesystem problem, because although
SpeedTest uses a file (of the user's choice - I used the same 13MB ZIP
for all tests) it doesn't actually create a file on the destination
machine (I guess the client just sends the data to NUL?).

I thought that too, but both MARDER and REDSHIFT have identical NICs.

Of my 3 suggestions, the one that did -- for sure -- make a big
difference was using the same account on both PCs. I'll be
interested to see what you report from trying that.

Tried that; it made no difference to me :-(

Hope that this may give some additional clues as to the cause. I've
tried just about suggestion I've found in numerous webpages and NG posts
but, like the OP, still have not resolved the problem.

Regards,

Parish

 

[Guest]

Parish

Thanks for the reply some months back. There was no activity on the thread for a few days and I forgot to check back

I still haven't solved this problem, and I am about to (once again) try various things. I agree that it sure looks like a file system problem. This problem first reared its head several years ago on a Win2K system when using a product called Second Copy 2000 which provides automatic syncrhronization between computers. The founder of the company that makes the product helped me considerably trying to troubleshoot the problem. While we never got things to speed up (because the problem was caused by this bug), he did point out quite a few interesting file system inconsistencies between NT-based computers (NT, Win2000, XP), and the earlier 95/98/ME computers. The big one is that the date/time stamps are recorded in a considerably different manner and as a result, there can be erroneously reported differences between two identical files because the date/time stamps do not agree exactly. This can cause software to re-transmit, thinking that the file at the other end is different, when in fact it is identical. I am going to look into this some more.