S L O W Windows Networking

In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?

Should I focus on the core operating system, NIC's or switch. I have my
own inclination - but some other takes on it would be most welcome.

--
.. . .

Stephen Ward wrote:
> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>
> Should I focus on the core operating system, NIC's or switch. I have my
> own inclination - but some other takes on it would be most welcome.
>

That sounds a bit long .... for a 10Mb hub :-(

A bit more info could be useful: which operating system and service pack
(ISTR Vista had a problem with indexing and transfers for a large number
of files when the receiving folder was open);

why "force" 100Mb? what happens if you use auto-negotiate?

have you tried different cables?

--
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

In article <49607eca$0$27148$(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Ward
says...
> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>
> Should I focus on the core operating system, NIC's or switch. I have my
> own inclination - but some other takes on it would be most welcome.
>
Disable your AV software.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:26:15 +0000, PeeGee wrote:

> Stephen Ward wrote:
>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
>> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
>> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>>
>> Should I focus on the core operating system, NIC's or switch. I have my
>> own inclination - but some other takes on it would be most welcome.
>>
>>
> That sounds a bit long .... for a 10Mb hub :-(
>
> A bit more info could be useful: which operating system and service pack
> (ISTR Vista had a problem with indexing and transfers for a large number
> of files when the receiving folder was open);
>
> why "force" 100Mb? what happens if you use auto-negotiate?
>
> have you tried different cables?

There are a pair of old XP SP2 machines. I forced 100mbps FD on both in
an attempt to speed things up. It's made no difference from the previous
'auto-neg'. I don't get any issues when I kick stuff through the same
switch with smb on my linux boxes - it's just these two 'laughing boys'
that are acting up.

Cables have been changed (yep - been bitten on that before), switch ports
etc.



--
.. . .

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:45:39 +0000, Conor wrote:

> In article <49607eca$0$27148$(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Ward
> says...
>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
>> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
>> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>>
>> Should I focus on the core operating system, NIC's or switch. I have my
>> own inclination - but some other takes on it would be most welcome.
>>
> Disable your AV software.

I'd already done that but thanks for the suggestion. Also kicked out the
old free 'zoneminder' that was running just in case that was messing with
it, but no dice.

I've got to thank Alex for his suggestions - my networking tab on task
manager gives me no throughput speed. It just shows the link at 100m and
a couple of % utilisation.



--
.. . .

Alex Fraser wrote:
> Stephen Ward wrote:
>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
>> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
>> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>
> Duplex mismatch seems a likely explanation. This results in erratic
> transfer rates (see Task Manager Networking tab), usually no more than
> 200KB/s average, many Ethernet-level errors and TCP segment
> retransmissions (see Network Interface and TCP performance counters in
> perfmon).
>
> Try forcing one or both ends to half duplex. For what it's worth, full
> duplex makes little difference to performance if data is primarily going
> one way - on an in-spec network, very little bandwidth is lost in
> collisions.
>
> Alex
I've had problems with XP when trying to do more than 1 copy/move at the
same time between mapped drives. Everything grinds to a halt, I now try
to be patient and run one copy/move window at a time.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:10:50 +0000, robert wrote:

> Alex Fraser wrote:
>> Stephen Ward wrote:
>>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
>>> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
>>> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>>
>> Duplex mismatch seems a likely explanation. This results in erratic
>> transfer rates (see Task Manager Networking tab), usually no more than
>> 200KB/s average, many Ethernet-level errors and TCP segment
>> retransmissions (see Network Interface and TCP performance counters in
>> perfmon).
>>
>> Try forcing one or both ends to half duplex. For what it's worth, full
>> duplex makes little difference to performance if data is primarily
>> going one way - on an in-spec network, very little bandwidth is lost in
>> collisions.
>>
>> Alex
> I've had problems with XP when trying to do more than 1 copy/move at the
> same time between mapped drives. Everything grinds to a halt, I now try
> to be patient and run one copy/move window at a time.

It finally finished so to try and trouble shoot I've copied one 2g file
from each box through the same switch to a samba share on a linux box.
This was much quicker. It's really odd behaviour to see. The issue seems
to be when the only xp boxes I have try to talk. I may look at spending
some more time with it.



--
.. . .

On 04 Jan 2009 18:00:01 GMT, Stephen Ward
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:10:50 +0000, robert wrote:
>
>> Alex Fraser wrote:
>>> Stephen Ward wrote:
>>>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>>>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple cheap
>>>> switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2 days to
>>>> transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>>>
>>> Duplex mismatch seems a likely explanation. This results in erratic
>>> transfer rates (see Task Manager Networking tab), usually no more than
>>> 200KB/s average, many Ethernet-level errors and TCP segment
>>> retransmissions (see Network Interface and TCP performance counters in
>>> perfmon).
>>>
>>> Try forcing one or both ends to half duplex. For what it's worth, full
>>> duplex makes little difference to performance if data is primarily
>>> going one way - on an in-spec network, very little bandwidth is lost in
>>> collisions.
>>>
>>> Alex
>> I've had problems with XP when trying to do more than 1 copy/move at the
>> same time between mapped drives. Everything grinds to a halt, I now try
>> to be patient and run one copy/move window at a time.
>
>It finally finished so to try and trouble shoot I've copied one 2g file
>from each box through the same switch to a samba share on a linux box.
>This was much quicker. It's really odd behaviour to see. The issue seems
>to be when the only xp boxes I have try to talk. I may look at spending
>some more time with it.

try wireshark on 1 or both of the PCs.

you should be able to capture part of the transfer and see what isnt
happening
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:35:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 04 Jan 2009 18:00:01 GMT, Stephen Ward
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:10:50 +0000, robert wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Fraser wrote:
>>>> Stephen Ward wrote:
>>>>> In the off chance someone has an idea, what would be a logical
>>>>> explanation to a couple of windows machines, linked via a simple
>>>>> cheap switch, both forced to full duplex 100mb - taking nearly 2
>>>>> days to transfer 10 2gb files from one box to the other?
>>>>
>>>> Duplex mismatch seems a likely explanation. This results in erratic
>>>> transfer rates (see Task Manager Networking tab), usually no more
>>>> than 200KB/s average, many Ethernet-level errors and TCP segment
>>>> retransmissions (see Network Interface and TCP performance counters
>>>> in perfmon).
>>>>
>>>> Try forcing one or both ends to half duplex. For what it's worth,
>>>> full duplex makes little difference to performance if data is
>>>> primarily going one way - on an in-spec network, very little
>>>> bandwidth is lost in collisions.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>> I've had problems with XP when trying to do more than 1 copy/move at
>>> the same time between mapped drives. Everything grinds to a halt, I
>>> now try to be patient and run one copy/move window at a time.
>>
>>It finally finished so to try and trouble shoot I've copied one 2g file
>>from each box through the same switch to a samba share on a linux box.
>>This was much quicker. It's really odd behaviour to see. The issue seems
>>to be when the only xp boxes I have try to talk. I may look at spending
>>some more time with it.
>
> try wireshark on 1 or both of the PCs.
>
> you should be able to capture part of the transfer and see what isnt
> happening

I already tried a tcpdump and looked at it in wireshark. The TCP
conversation is normal (SYN/ACK) - no retransmissions or anything odd
going on. I'll look at it a bit more closely in a couple of weeks. I
don't use Windows that much for it to be an issue, I'd just like to get
to the bottom of it. Thanks for everybody who took the time and trouble
to make suggestions. Much appreciated.



--
.. . .