Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

On network shares with a large number of files, listing the directory on
Windows XP running on new Dell with a 2.8GHz Pentium IV and 256MB RAM is
much, much slower than on an old Compaq Prosignia desktop running Windows 98
SE on a 700Mhz Pentium III with 64MB RAM. The network share is on an NTFS
volume, and I expect that is part of the problem. Is there any way to limit
Windows Explorer so that it doesn't try to retrieve additional information
from files on a network share?
 
Brian Selzer said:
On network shares with a large number of files, listing the directory on
Windows XP running on new Dell with a 2.8GHz Pentium IV and 256MB RAM is
much, much slower than on an old Compaq Prosignia desktop running Windows
98
SE on a 700Mhz Pentium III with 64MB RAM. The network share is on an NTFS
volume, and I expect that is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that?
Is there any way to limit
Windows Explorer so that it doesn't try to retrieve additional information
from files on a network share?
Click to expand...

Such as? Have you checked the properties for a file that are presented over
the network as compared to what's available locally?

What are you using for anti-virus on the XP machine? What kind of 'tweaking'
have you done?
 
There is a lot more information stored in the directory of an NTFS volume
than that of a FAT or FAT-32 volume. There is summary information, as well
as additional housekeeping information, for example, ACL's and whether the
file is compressed or encrypted. I read somewhere in the Microsoft Knowledge
Base that Windows Explorer on a computer that supports NTFS reads this
information when displaying the contents of a shared folder that resides on
an NTFS volume. In addition, several Knowledge Base articles mention the
transmission of this information with respect to network traffic performance,
i.e. additional SMB packets required to retrieve it. The Windows 98 SE
Explorer is unaware of the additional information, and thus does not retrieve
it. I can only assume that the Windows XP Explorer by default retrieves the
information if it is available when presenting the list of files. It is the
only thing I can think of that would cause the delays.

At the time that the files are being listed in Windows Explorer, they
haven't yet been accessed--only directory information has been retrieved;
therefore, the on-access anti-virus scan should not be a factor since it only
activates when the data inside a file is read, not when the directory
information is retrieved. The new Dell computers came with Norton Internet
Security, but the same thing happens on my Tablet PC which is running McAfee
VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.

I am not sure what to tweak, since I haven't found a Microsoft Knowledge
Base article that addresses this particular issue. I was hoping that someone
from Microsoft would read my question and tell me which registry setting to
change to turn off the new bells and whistles in Windows XP Explorer.

This is a serious issue for my client. The perception that the new
computers are slower than the old ones has caused them to stall the upgrade
of their servers and the rest of their workstations. The delays affect the
productivity of those who have already had their computer replaced, and as a
result, they have asked for their old computers back. Because I recommended
replacing the old Windows 98 computers with new Windows XP computers, this
problem has damaged my credibility: it now appears to my client that I don't
know what I'm doing.


Thank you for your comments and any suggestions you may have,

Brian Selzer,
Master CNE, MCSE+I, MCDBA, etc., etc.
 
OK. However one very critical thing you've glossed over and the first issue
to tear down misconceptions.

All that information is gleaned on the server side. Now, how much is
presented over the network? How much real bandwidth is involved? Double
check your references.

I'll also tell you straight up that when using explorer on the machine
locally, *ALL* that information is being processed the same as a remote
access. Permissions, etc. are an intrinsic part of the file structure. In
fact, the file structure has no idea, nor does it care, if the access is via
local log on or remote. Permissions, etc. are vetted regardless and there is
no way, for security reasons, that some of this information will be
transmitted over a network.

People get fixated over NTFS and miss the obvious. Set aside the file
structure. I dare say you'd have issues whether the file structure is FAT,
HPFS, or a *ix specific file structure.

Disable AV on the server and see what happens.
 
This is not a bandwidth issue: my client has two types of computers
connecting to the same network share: 26 are running Windows 98, and 4 are
running Windows XP. The Windows 98 machines list the folder in less than a
second, whereas the Windows XP machines take half a minute. If it is an AV
issue on the server, then Windows XP is probing the files' data in addition
to their directory entries as it is loading the explorer window. (If that is
happening, that's what I want to turn off!)

I just found an article on the internet about increasing SizReqBuf to 65535
to improve network share performance on Windows NT/2000/XP. There is another
article about removing a registry key that facilitates listing task scheduler
files. I don't know if either of these things will work, but I now have a
few things to try when I go out there tomorrow.

Thanks again for your input.
 
FYI: increasing
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters\SizReqBuf on
the server to 65535 fixed the problem. The explorer window now populates as
fast on Windows XP as on Windows 98.
 
Back
Top