Re: UNC versus drive letter performance
From: Louis Solomon [SteelBytes] (louis_at_steelbytes.spam-is-bad.com)
Date: 03/24/04
- Next message: the nitewolf: "Re: Creating a VPN"
- Previous message: newbie: "http get call"
- In reply to: JR: "UNC versus drive letter performance"
- Next in thread: Eugene Gershnik: "Re: UNC versus drive letter performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:28:02 +1100
in my experience, UNC is as fast for transfer of data, but the opening of
files can be slower, depending on network config.
what am I saying ? due to some issues in the authenitcation such as
difference LM/NTLMv2/etc settings on client and server, and bugs etc,
opening a file _sometimes_ takes way longer then it should, but once it is
open, the transfer is as fast as mapped drive.
-- Louis Solomon www.steelbytes.com "JR" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C1406542-5FED-4CA8-AE7D-92ADB10A3D72@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I'm trying to find out about the performance differences between these two > scenarios: > > (a) Accessing files through a local drive letter > OR > (b) Accessing the same files through a UNC share. (E.g. > //fred/myfiles/... where fred is the name of the local machine). > > I have seen two Knowledge Base articles, 328252 and 260091. > > One seems to say that there is always a signficant difference, while the > other implies that UNC is relatively close to drive letter performance, > as long as you have Win 2000 Service Pack 3 or later. Which is correct? > > JR >
- Next message: the nitewolf: "Re: Creating a VPN"
- Previous message: newbie: "http get call"
- In reply to: JR: "UNC versus drive letter performance"
- Next in thread: Eugene Gershnik: "Re: UNC versus drive letter performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|