Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT
From: Roland Hall (nobody_at_nowhere)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: Roland Hall: "Re: lan"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Remote Desktop through VPN Connection"
- In reply to: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Next in thread: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:37:11 -0500
"Paul Welsh" <pwelsh@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:613ecd8e.0410270207.66b7a502@posting.google.com...
: "Roland Hall" <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
news:<#4PFHLzuEHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
: > 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
- Next message: Roland Hall: "Re: lan"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Remote Desktop through VPN Connection"
- In reply to: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Next in thread: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Reply: Paul Welsh: "Re: Very slow network browsing from W2K but not NT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|