Slow file transfer on network drive.

I am experiencing problems(slowness) when I copy files within a mapped
network drive. Using a Win2K workstation I am copying files between two
folders in the same mapped network drive. The files are transferring to a
folder on the same partition, so shouldn't it be quick? Using WinXP (same
box) I can perform the same action much quicker. Is the workstation
controlling the copy? Any ideas on how to solve this problem?

"DCA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:28A13042-D44A-40CB-94D6-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am experiencing problems(slowness) when I copy files within a mapped
> network drive. Using a Win2K workstation I am copying files between two
> folders in the same mapped network drive. The files are transferring to a
> folder on the same partition, so shouldn't it be quick?

Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
"buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
go "over the wire" twice.

You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
Desktop.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
getting it done.

Thank you.

"Phillip Windell" wrote:

> Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> go "over the wire" twice.
>
> You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> Desktop.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com

see what is written here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112


"DCA" wrote:

> Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> getting it done.
>
> Thank you.
>
> "Phillip Windell" wrote:
>
> > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > go "over the wire" twice.
> >
> > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > Desktop.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > www.wandtv.com

Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?

"Zer0byte" wrote:

> see what is written here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
>
>
> "DCA" wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > getting it done.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> >
> > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > >
> > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > Desktop.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > www.wandtv.com

Actualy, it seems to you that its done within the same drive, and controlled
by your machine, thats wrong, the procedure here is that when you do a copy
operation, the data and copy commands are transferred from/to server twice,
so i think if you are going to copy within a mapped drive, that mustnt be in
the rush hours, that must be in low traffic time.
Or you have to improve the network infrastructue,, and thats hard to be done
just for copying files, so i think you have to choose the first choice. which
is to prevent copying frm server in high traffic times.

"DCA" wrote:

> Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
> how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
> Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?
>
> "Zer0byte" wrote:
>
> > see what is written here:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
> >
> >
> > "DCA" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > > getting it done.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > > >
> > > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > > Desktop.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > > www.wandtv.com

So why does the same action take less time when the same box is loaded with XP?

"Zer0byte" wrote:

> Actualy, it seems to you that its done within the same drive, and controlled
> by your machine, thats wrong, the procedure here is that when you do a copy
> operation, the data and copy commands are transferred from/to server twice,
> so i think if you are going to copy within a mapped drive, that mustnt be in
> the rush hours, that must be in low traffic time.
> Or you have to improve the network infrastructue,, and thats hard to be done
> just for copying files, so i think you have to choose the first choice. which
> is to prevent copying frm server in high traffic times.
>
> "DCA" wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
> > how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
> > Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?
> >
> > "Zer0byte" wrote:
> >
> > > see what is written here:
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
> > >
> > >
> > > "DCA" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > > > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > > > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > > > getting it done.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > > > >
> > > > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > > > Desktop.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > > > www.wandtv.com

do you have Novell NetWare server or a UNIX NFS server? or just MS
envirnoument. ?

"DCA" wrote:

> So why does the same action take less time when the same box is loaded with XP?
>
> "Zer0byte" wrote:
>
> > Actualy, it seems to you that its done within the same drive, and controlled
> > by your machine, thats wrong, the procedure here is that when you do a copy
> > operation, the data and copy commands are transferred from/to server twice,
> > so i think if you are going to copy within a mapped drive, that mustnt be in
> > the rush hours, that must be in low traffic time.
> > Or you have to improve the network infrastructue,, and thats hard to be done
> > just for copying files, so i think you have to choose the first choice. which
> > is to prevent copying frm server in high traffic times.
> >
> > "DCA" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
> > > how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
> > > Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?
> > >
> > > "Zer0byte" wrote:
> > >
> > > > see what is written here:
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "DCA" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > > > > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > > > > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > > > > getting it done.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > > > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > > > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > > > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > > > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > > > > Desktop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > > > > www.wandtv.com

oh
I found this for you:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;885189

"DCA" wrote:

> So why does the same action take less time when the same box is loaded with XP?
>
> "Zer0byte" wrote:
>
> > Actualy, it seems to you that its done within the same drive, and controlled
> > by your machine, thats wrong, the procedure here is that when you do a copy
> > operation, the data and copy commands are transferred from/to server twice,
> > so i think if you are going to copy within a mapped drive, that mustnt be in
> > the rush hours, that must be in low traffic time.
> > Or you have to improve the network infrastructue,, and thats hard to be done
> > just for copying files, so i think you have to choose the first choice. which
> > is to prevent copying frm server in high traffic times.
> >
> > "DCA" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
> > > how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
> > > Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?
> > >
> > > "Zer0byte" wrote:
> > >
> > > > see what is written here:
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "DCA" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > > > > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > > > > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > > > > getting it done.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > > > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > > > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > > > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > > > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > > > > Desktop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > > > > www.wandtv.com

Thanks Zero.

I sped it up a little by using a UNC address instead of the mapped drive.
Idon't know if I'll be changing the registry though.

Thank you,

DCA

"Zer0byte" wrote:

> oh
> I found this for you:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;885189
>
> "DCA" wrote:
>
> > So why does the same action take less time when the same box is loaded with XP?
> >
> > "Zer0byte" wrote:
> >
> > > Actualy, it seems to you that its done within the same drive, and controlled
> > > by your machine, thats wrong, the procedure here is that when you do a copy
> > > operation, the data and copy commands are transferred from/to server twice,
> > > so i think if you are going to copy within a mapped drive, that mustnt be in
> > > the rush hours, that must be in low traffic time.
> > > Or you have to improve the network infrastructue,, and thats hard to be done
> > > just for copying files, so i think you have to choose the first choice. which
> > > is to prevent copying frm server in high traffic times.
> > >
> > > "DCA" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the info, but it didn't help. There must be a difference between
> > > > how XP and 2K run a copy within the same partition on the same network drive.
> > > > Is there a way to the server hosting the network drive run the copy?
> > > >
> > > > "Zer0byte" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > see what is written here:
> > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814112
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "DCA" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the help. I kinda thought that was why, but what in XP (on the
> > > > > > same box) makes the same process much quicker? My users are running a
> > > > > > program that performs the copy, so I'll have to think of another way of
> > > > > > getting it done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Becuse it has to copy from the original location across the network to the
> > > > > > > "buffer" in you local machine and then it has to copy from you local machine
> > > > > > > back to the new location on the remote machine. In otherwords,...it has to
> > > > > > > go "over the wire" twice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You solve the problem by not doing that and actually going over to the
> > > > > > > machine itself and do the copy/move locally. You could also use Remote
> > > > > > > Desktop.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > > > > > www.wandtv.com