Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT

[Paul Welsh]

Hi All

I have spent hours looking into this but am getting nowhere so any
help appreciated.

I am connecting over a 4 Mb leased line, Cisco router based WAN using
Windows 2000 Professional SP4 clients to a server running Windows 2000
Advanced Server SP4.

The performance problems occur when I browse shared folders on the
server using Windows Explorer. For example, I have a folder
containing 145 files totalling 560 Mb. If I use the mouse or cursor
keys to highlight one file after another, sequentially, I get terrible
performance problems if I pause on each highlighted file for a couple
of seconds before moving to the next one. Note that I'm not opening
the files, simply highlighting them. If I monitor the Network
Interface/Bytes Received/sec object using Performance Monitor I can
see this value peak at nearly 400 Kb and stay high for about 5 seconds
when I move from file to file.

If I move quickly up and down the listing using the cursor keys
(several files per second) then the performance is fine.

Using NT 4 Workstation SP6a gives me no problems.

Copying files from the server is acceptably fast and is as fast on the
W2K client as it is on the NT4 client.

The server isn't on a domain.

I have tried with several W2K clients, not all of which are running
identical builds. The problem is the same.

We are running NetWare too and both the NT4 and W2K machines have the
NetWare client installed.

I've tried these fixes to no avail:

1. Slow Network Performance Occurs When You Select a File on a Share
That Uses NTFS - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;265396

2. Slow network performance when you open a file that is located in a
shared folder on a remote network computer -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/829700

It seems to me that this must be something to do with the additional
data that W2K tries to obtain about each file. Clearly, this is
having a huge impact. What I can't figure out is why it's still a
problem under W2K SP4 because SP4 was meant to have fixed this
problem.

Any help gratefully received.

 

[Roland Hall]

in message
: I have spent hours looking into this but am getting nowhere so any
: help appreciated.
:
: I am connecting over a 4 Mb leased line, Cisco router based WAN using
: Windows 2000 Professional SP4 clients to a server running Windows 2000
: Advanced Server SP4.
:
: The performance problems occur when I browse shared folders on the
: server using Windows Explorer. For example, I have a folder
: containing 145 files totalling 560 Mb. If I use the mouse or cursor
: keys to highlight one file after another, sequentially, I get terrible
: performance problems if I pause on each highlighted file for a couple
: of seconds before moving to the next one. Note that I'm not opening
: the files, simply highlighting them. If I monitor the Network
: Interface/Bytes Received/sec object using Performance Monitor I can
: see this value peak at nearly 400 Kb and stay high for about 5 seconds
: when I move from file to file.
:
: If I move quickly up and down the listing using the cursor keys
: (several files per second) then the performance is fine.
:
: Using NT 4 Workstation SP6a gives me no problems.
:
: Copying files from the server is acceptably fast and is as fast on the
: W2K client as it is on the NT4 client.
:
: The server isn't on a domain.
:
: I have tried with several W2K clients, not all of which are running
: identical builds. The problem is the same.
:
: We are running NetWare too and both the NT4 and W2K machines have the
: NetWare client installed.
:
: I've tried these fixes to no avail:
:
: 1. Slow Network Performance Occurs When You Select a File on a Share
: That Uses NTFS -
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;265396
:
: 2. Slow network performance when you open a file that is located in a
: shared folder on a remote network computer -
: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/829700
:
: It seems to me that this must be something to do with the additional
: data that W2K tries to obtain about each file. Clearly, this is
: having a huge impact. What I can't figure out is why it's still a
: problem under W2K SP4 because SP4 was meant to have fixed this
: problem.

Is this a DC?
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBK/tip5300/rh5361.htm

The Netware Client is Client32?
Which is first in the binding order on a W2K computer and an NT one?

Should one assume there are two Cisco routers and two private networks?

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Online Support for IT Professionals -
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/technet/default.asp?fr=0&sd=tech
How-to: Windows 2000 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;308201
FAQ W2K/2K3 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;291382

 

[Paul Welsh]

Is this a DC?
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBK/tip5300/rh5361.htm

The Netware Client is Client32?
Which is first in the binding order on a W2K computer and an NT one?

Should one assume there are two Cisco routers and two private networks?

Hi Roland

No, the server isn't a DC. On the contrary, it isn't even on a
Windows Domain. It's on a workgroup called Workgroup, ie, the
default, because this is predominantly a NetWare server environment.

On NT, the NetWare Client is the Novell Client 4.80 and the order is:
Client Access Network, NetWare Services, Microsoft Windows Network.

On Windows 2000, the NetWare Client is the Novell Client for Windows
4.90.0.0 SP1a and the order is: Novell NetIdentity Credential
Provider, NetWare Services, Microsoft Windows Network, Lotus Notes
Single Logon.

In other words, NetWare is at the top on both NT and W2K. I tried
changing the order under Windows 2000 (putting Microsoft Windows
Network at the top) but to no avail.

The NT client is using the same DNS and DHCP server as the W2K client.
The NT client is using a WINS server but the server being accessed
isn't listed in the WINS database. I have tried pointing the W2K
client to the WINS server but it makes no difference.

Yes, there are 2 Cisco 2600 routers at each end of a private circuit
(2 Mb at least, could be 4 Mb) connecting 2 offices. The private
10.0.0.0 IP address space is being used.

I'm sure that the Windows Explorer on the W2K client gathers extra
info that the NT 4 Windows Explorer doesn't. When I highlight a file
for a few seconds, then try highlighting another one, that's when the
delay is most noticeable.

 

[Roland Hall]

in message
: > Is this a DC?
: > http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBK/tip5300/rh5361.htm
: >
: > The Netware Client is Client32?
: > Which is first in the binding order on a W2K computer and an NT one?
: >
: > Should one assume there are two Cisco routers and two private networks?
:
: Hi Roland
:
: No, the server isn't a DC. On the contrary, it isn't even on a
: Windows Domain. It's on a workgroup called Workgroup, ie, the
: default, because this is predominantly a NetWare server environment.
:
: On NT, the NetWare Client is the Novell Client 4.80 and the order is:
: Client Access Network, NetWare Services, Microsoft Windows Network.
:
: On Windows 2000, the NetWare Client is the Novell Client for Windows
: 4.90.0.0 SP1a and the order is: Novell NetIdentity Credential
: Provider, NetWare Services, Microsoft Windows Network, Lotus Notes
: Single Logon.
:
: In other words, NetWare is at the top on both NT and W2K. I tried
: changing the order under Windows 2000 (putting Microsoft Windows
: Network at the top) but to no avail.
:
: The NT client is using the same DNS and DHCP server as the W2K client.
: The NT client is using a WINS server but the server being accessed
: isn't listed in the WINS database. I have tried pointing the W2K
: client to the WINS server but it makes no difference.
:
: Yes, there are 2 Cisco 2600 routers at each end of a private circuit
: (2 Mb at least, could be 4 Mb) connecting 2 offices. The private
: 10.0.0.0 IP address space is being used.
:
: I'm sure that the Windows Explorer on the W2K client gathers extra
: info that the NT 4 Windows Explorer doesn't. When I highlight a file
: for a few seconds, then try highlighting another one, that's when the
: delay is most noticeable.

I assume the server is running in mixed mode and the NetBIOS over TCP/IP?
Are there helper addresses in the router configs and what is the duplex
setting on all? You stated browsing on the server but not from where or I
missed it. I assume using a remote W2K Pro across the WAN to the server is
slow.

Are there Cisco switches involved and if not, what are the interconnectivity
devices on the LANs these workstations and the server are connected to? And
it would help to know if using Cisco, how many switches involved and are
there redundant links? If so, is spanning tree enabled and if so, is
portfast enabled on those ports, and hopefully not on trunk ports.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Online Support for IT Professionals -
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/technet/default.asp?fr=0&sd=tech
How-to: Windows 2000 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;308201
FAQ W2K/2K3 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;291382

 

[Paul Welsh]

I assume the server is running in mixed mode and the NetBIOS over TCP/IP?
Are there helper addresses in the router configs and what is the duplex
setting on all? You stated browsing on the server but not from where or I
missed it. I assume using a remote W2K Pro across the WAN to the server is
slow.

Are there Cisco switches involved and if not, what are the interconnectivity
devices on the LANs these workstations and the server are connected to? And
it would help to know if using Cisco, how many switches involved and are
there redundant links? If so, is spanning tree enabled and if so, is
portfast enabled on those ports, and hopefully not on trunk ports.

Hi Roland

I don't have easy access to the info you are asking for about the
Cisco routers or the W2K Server. Yes, you are correct in thinking
that I am browsing a W2K Server over a WAN from both a W2K Pro machine
and an NT4 Workstation. NT4 is fine, W2K is really slow.

No, we're not using Cisco switches. The workstations are connected to
Nortel BayStack 450s which are in turn connected to a Nortel Passport
8010. The Cisco router is connected to the Passport.

Again, I don't have the info about whether spanning tree is enabled.

Can I ask what you believe the problem could be? Also, why do you
think I am getting the discrepancy between the performance of NT4 and
W2K clients?

BTW, I have just tried and failed to replicate this problem using a
W2K Server on the LAN - my W2K client can browse files on a W2K Server
just fine using Windows Explorer.

 

[Roland Hall]

: > I assume the server is running in mixed mode and the NetBIOS over
TCP/IP?
: > Are there helper addresses in the router configs and what is the duplex
: > setting on all? You stated browsing on the server but not from where or
I
: > missed it. I assume using a remote W2K Pro across the WAN to the server
is
: > slow.
: >
: > Are there Cisco switches involved and if not, what are the
interconnectivity
: > devices on the LANs these workstations and the server are connected to?
And
: > it would help to know if using Cisco, how many switches involved and are
: > there redundant links? If so, is spanning tree enabled and if so, is
: > portfast enabled on those ports, and hopefully not on trunk ports.
: >
: Hi Roland
:
: I don't have easy access to the info you are asking for about the
: Cisco routers or the W2K Server. Yes, you are correct in thinking
: that I am browsing a W2K Server over a WAN from both a W2K Pro machine
: and an NT4 Workstation. NT4 is fine, W2K is really slow.
:
: No, we're not using Cisco switches. The workstations are connected to
: Nortel BayStack 450s which are in turn connected to a Nortel Passport
: 8010. The Cisco router is connected to the Passport.
:
: Again, I don't have the info about whether spanning tree is enabled.
:
: Can I ask what you believe the problem could be? Also, why do you
: think I am getting the discrepancy between the performance of NT4 and
: W2K clients?
:
: BTW, I have just tried and failed to replicate this problem using a
: W2K Server on the LAN - my W2K client can browse files on a W2K Server
: just fine using Windows Explorer.

Hi Paul...

Initially I thought the same as the first document you read that W2K was
gathering extra information. My next thought was to check everything in
between, primarily the switches because ports, at least on Cisco switches
can have spanning tree and portfast enabled on a per port basis, so it could
be a config issue there. My next would be to match the cabling and
eliminate physical issues but you just said it is fine on the LAN but
perhaps the LAN is too fast to show the latency gathered across a slow link,
across two hops. Latency is obviously introduced.

I've seen some ridiculous issues in the past 25 years and some were CAT3 vs
CAT5 cables, flat satin vs CAT5 in a switched network, misconfigs on
switches where duplex setting mismatches were only seen on the switch due to
errors being logged, Compaq Netflex controllers not supporting Full Duplex
mode even though no errors were being reported at the server until
disconnects occurred, back plane overload when all devices were running full
duplex. The last one was just last week and switching to 100mb/HD solved
the issue and increased network performance significantly. The [switch]
backplane just couldn't handle the load. It was more evident on XP than any
other OS.

It may take a protocol analyzer to watch the traffic and find out where the
bottleneck is. You could probably pull up both computers and watch the
traffic amount transferred performing the same function as a simple test for
the amount of information W2K transfers vs NT. It's not scientific but it
may either be enough of a difference or prove to be insignificant and
eliminate at least one possibility. However, I would definitely consider
sniffing the line on the LAN, both sides of the router and the same on the
other end. I use a product called TracePlus/Ethernet and I can narrow my
focus to exactly the type of traffic it captures. http://sstinc.com/.
Ironically, here is the current message on their splash page: Is your Web
site slow? Is your Internet application not communicating? Up against a
deadline?

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Online Support for IT Professionals -
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/technet/default.asp?fr=0&sd=tech
How-to: Windows 2000 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;308201
FAQ W2K/2K3 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;291382

 

[Paul Welsh]

It may take a protocol analyzer to watch the traffic and find out where the
bottleneck is. You could probably pull up both computers and watch the
traffic amount transferred performing the same function as a simple test for
the amount of information W2K transfers vs NT. It's not scientific but it
may either be enough of a difference or prove to be insignificant and
eliminate at least one possibility. However, I would definitely consider
sniffing the line on the LAN, both sides of the router and the same on the
other end.

I think it's more of a W2K issue than a network one.

I just used Performance Monitor to monitor the Bytes Received/sec
counter from the Redirector object. This clearly shows a dramatic
difference between the W2K and NT4 client. Under NT, highlighting
each file in a folder on the remote server in turn makes no impact on
the counter. Under W2K, the impact is dramatic. The number of bytes
received goes up to around 300kb and stays above 100kb for a few
seconds each time I move from one file to another.

If I move up and down the list of files in the folder very quickly
then this delay under w2k doesn't occur, ie, it behaves like NT does.

I'm convinced that w2k is requesting extra info from the w2k server
and that this is what causes the problem. Clearly, however, there's
something going wrong with the transfer of this extra info.

 

[Paul Welsh]

I've done some more analysis. The Bytes Received counter from the
Redirector object in Perf. Mon. does the same as another more specific
counter, namely Write Bytes Paging/sec. This counter is "the rate
that the Redirector is attempting to write bytes changed in the pages
being used by applications. The program data changed by modules (such
as programs and libraries) that were loaded over the network are
'paged out' when no longer needed". As I say, this counter tracks
exactly the more general Bytes Received counter.

The other counter that gets excited when I browse the remote server is
File Read Operations/sec. This counter "is the rate that applications
are asking the Redirector for data. Each call to a file system or
similar Application Program Interface (API) call counts as one
operation". These 2 counters behave independently but both reach very
high levels when I browse.

Finally, I have noticed that this problem only arises when I move up
and down a listing of large files. The folder I am browsing contains
files ranging from tens of Kb to hundreds of Kb all the way up to 44
Mb. If I sort by size I get horrendous problems moving from 1 large
file to another but fewer performance problems switching the focus
between the smaller files. Note, however, that switching focus
between files of only a few hundred Kb causes significant, very
noticeable problems.

When I switch focus to one of the largest files, Explorer stops
responding completely for a few seconds and the Write Bytes Paging
counter reaches nearly 400Kb. It as if Explorer is reading the file.

 

[Paul Welsh]

Problem solved!

The answer was at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/265396 - "Slow
Network Performance Occurs When You Select a File on a Share That Uses
NTFS" - all along. I was guilty of misreading part of the solution
this article gave.

The article says to do the following:

1. Install the hotfix, and then restart the computer when you are
prompted.
2. On the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, click Folder Options.
3. In the Folder Options window, click the View tab, and then make
sure that the Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items
check box is not selected.
4. Click the General tab, and then click the Use Windows Classic
Folders check box.
5. Click OK to close the Folder Options window.

The hotfix is irrelevant since, as the article says, "this problem was
first corrected in Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4".

However, the "Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items"
check box *must* be disabled and the "Use Windows Classic Folders"
option must be enabled.

When I first read this article I didn't read "Use Windows Classic
Folders" properly and instead enabled "Use Windows classic desktop".

I narrowed this problem down to Windows Explorer by copying
winfile.exe (the old NT 3.51 File Manager program) from the NT4 client
to the W2K client. Good old File Manager had no performance problems
so I *knew* it was a Windows Explorer error.

Thanks for your help, Roland.

 

[Roland Hall]

in message
: Problem solved!
:
: The answer was at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/265396 - "Slow
: Network Performance Occurs When You Select a File on a Share That Uses
: NTFS" - all along. I was guilty of misreading part of the solution
: this article gave.
:
: The article says to do the following:
:
: 1. Install the hotfix, and then restart the computer when you are
: prompted.
: 2. On the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, click Folder Options.
: 3. In the Folder Options window, click the View tab, and then make
: sure that the Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items
: check box is not selected.
: 4. Click the General tab, and then click the Use Windows Classic
: Folders check box.
: 5. Click OK to close the Folder Options window.
:
: The hotfix is irrelevant since, as the article says, "this problem was
: first corrected in Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4".
:
: However, the "Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items"
: check box *must* be disabled and the "Use Windows Classic Folders"
: option must be enabled.
:
: When I first read this article I didn't read "Use Windows Classic
: Folders" properly and instead enabled "Use Windows classic desktop".
:
: I narrowed this problem down to Windows Explorer by copying
: winfile.exe (the old NT 3.51 File Manager program) from the NT4 client
: to the W2K client. Good old File Manager had no performance problems
: so I *knew* it was a Windows Explorer error.
:
: Thanks for your help, Roland.

Good job Paul. It appears our first thoughts were correct. The article was
even titled exactly as the problem you were experiencing. I used to run a
VSAT network, talk about latency. We did everything we could to gain
performance and that's hard to do traveling 44k miles in one direction. We
had these turned off so we never saw the issue you were referring to. The
only difference in applications was remote control. My preferred choice is
Netop but Dameware Utilities performed better across the satellite but was
drastically slower on the LAN and T-1 WANs. It was the tuning they had done
for TCP/IP communications that had a bigger window.

I've noticed sometimes I never see some issues I read about mainly because
my configuration is a lot different and I never run anything with a default
config. It used to irritate someone I worked with. She'd say, "...but
that's the way we've always done it." I'd say, "Ya', I know." (O:=

Congratulations buddy. You didn't give up and rechecked yourself when some
others would have given up.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Online Support for IT Professionals -
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/technet/default.asp?fr=0&sd=tech
How-to: Windows 2000 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;308201
FAQ W2K/2K3 DNS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;291382