Windows 2000 Pro interacting with NT 4.0 Server

B

Brent B

I posted a thread on here a few days ago regarding slow network speeds with
2000 but fast network speeds with 98.

I have since found the problem but do not know how to solve it.

To summarize the problem, when Windows 2000 Pro interacts with Win98 or NT
4.0 Server, its network speed is literally half of what it should be. When
W2K interacts with another 2K machine, its network speed is perfect.

I'm sure this has something to do with W2K using DNS and 98/NT using WINS.
Anyone hear of this issue before or know where to start?

Thanks.

Brent
 
M

Marina Roos

So one nic in the NT-server, right?
Which options have you set in the DHCP-manager?
Can you post the ipconfig/all from that W2K?

Marina
 
B

Brent B

Yes one NIC in the server. I have set router/gateway, DNS server, and
Domain Name under DHCP Settings.

The Ipconfig that was posted was on the W2K machine.

The 98 machines are showing the same gateway, DNS server, IP address range,
subnet mask, etc.

I'm lost as to why W2K and 98/NT dont work well together in regards to
performance.

Brent
 
J

Jefferson Krogh

Hi Brent,

Just a dumb idea. If you're getting exactly half the speed, you could be
dealing with a NIC or a port on an Ethernet hub or switch that is not set to
full duplex. Might be worth a look. Good luck!

Jefferson Krogh
IS Manager
Kennerley-Spratling, Inc.
 
B

Brent B

That seems like the issue but both the NIC and Switch are set to 100 Mbps
and Full Duplex. One of the first things I tried.

Any other ideas? I'm open for just about anything though I've tried most
already.

Brent
 
M

Marina Roos

Do you also have option 044 and 046 (which should be set to 0x8) in DHCP?

Marina
 
B

Brent B

Ok I started the WINS and put 46 on 8 (Hybrid) and renewed my ipconfig.

No change in speed.
 
B

Brent B

Yes I restarted the DHCP server.

I have an interesting suggestion that might indicate part of the issue.

NT 4.0 Server uses NTFS version 4. Windows 2K uses NTFS version 5 (assuming
both are formatted in NTFS and not FAT). I'm thinking that there might be a
bottleneck converting the data from version 4 to version 5.

Any thoughts?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top