Strange network issue

I am having a strange network issue. We have a client machine that is
connected to a scanner. When we scan an image we send it over the network to
a an image server in the server room. If we do this via UNC (ie
//servername/share$) it copies a 23MB file in about 5-10 seconds. When we
map the share to a drive letter and try to copy the file it takes 7 minutes
to copy the same file.

The workstation is XP, the server is server2003. We have ruled out anti
virus. Has anyone comes accross issues when copying files via drive letter
takes significantly longer than UNC?

Mapped drives are a thing of the past going back to the old days of DOS and
Windows3.11. They have always been inefficient and troublesome. I don't
have an answer to exactly why it is doing that, but it shouldn't be
considered any great loss.

UNC pathes are the correct way to do this.

--

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


"Martin Walders" <mwalders(at)preferredcare(dot)org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am having a strange network issue. We have a client machine that is
> connected to a scanner. When we scan an image we send it over the network
to
> a an image server in the server room. If we do this via UNC (ie
> //servername/share$) it copies a 23MB file in about 5-10 seconds. When we
> map the share to a drive letter and try to copy the file it takes 7
minutes
> to copy the same file.
>
> The workstation is XP, the server is server2003. We have ruled out anti
> virus. Has anyone comes accross issues when copying files via drive letter
> takes significantly longer than UNC?
>
>

Unfortunately the software we use requires a mapped drive.

We think the issue is related to a windows XP service pack 1 client talking
with a Windows 2003 service pack 1 server. Machines running winxpsp2 can
copy fine to that server via a mapped drive. I am doing some testing and
will update the group when I find out more.


"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:upiM%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mapped drives are a thing of the past going back to the old days of DOS
> and
> Windows3.11. They have always been inefficient and troublesome. I don't
> have an answer to exactly why it is doing that, but it shouldn't be
> considered any great loss.
>
> UNC pathes are the correct way to do this.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>
> "Martin Walders" <mwalders(at)preferredcare(dot)org> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I am having a strange network issue. We have a client machine that is
>> connected to a scanner. When we scan an image we send it over the network
> to
>> a an image server in the server room. If we do this via UNC (ie
>> //servername/share$) it copies a 23MB file in about 5-10 seconds. When we
>> map the share to a drive letter and try to copy the file it takes 7
> minutes
>> to copy the same file.
>>
>> The workstation is XP, the server is server2003. We have ruled out anti
>> virus. Has anyone comes accross issues when copying files via drive
>> letter
>> takes significantly longer than UNC?
>>
>>
>
>

Upgrading to Service pack 2 fixed the problem.

Our results found:

a winxpsp1 machine could copy to a server2000 machine via UNC or mapped
drive fine.
a winxpsp1 machine can copy to a server 2003sp1 machine via UNC fine, but is
extremlly slow via a mapped drive.
a winxpsp2 machine could copy to a server2000 machine via UNC or mapped
drive fine.
a winxpsp2 machine could copy to a server2003sp1 machine via UNC or mapped
drive fine.

"Martin Walders" <mwalders(at)preferredcare(dot)org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am having a strange network issue. We have a client machine that is
>connected to a scanner. When we scan an image we send it over the network
>to a an image server in the server room. If we do this via UNC (ie
>//servername/share$) it copies a 23MB file in about 5-10 seconds. When we
>map the share to a drive letter and try to copy the file it takes 7 minutes
>to copy the same file.
>
> The workstation is XP, the server is server2003. We have ruled out anti
> virus. Has anyone comes accross issues when copying files via drive letter
> takes significantly longer than UNC?
>

Very good!
Good luck with it sir!

--

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

"Martin Walders" <mwalders(at)preferredcare(dot)org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Upgrading to Service pack 2 fixed the problem.
>
> Our results found:
>
> a winxpsp1 machine could copy to a server2000 machine via UNC or mapped
> drive fine.
> a winxpsp1 machine can copy to a server 2003sp1 machine via UNC fine, but
is
> extremlly slow via a mapped drive.
> a winxpsp2 machine could copy to a server2000 machine via UNC or mapped
> drive fine.
> a winxpsp2 machine could copy to a server2003sp1 machine via UNC or mapped
> drive fine.
>
> "Martin Walders" <mwalders(at)preferredcare(dot)org> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I am having a strange network issue. We have a client machine that is
> >connected to a scanner. When we scan an image we send it over the network
> >to a an image server in the server room. If we do this via UNC (ie
> >//servername/share$) it copies a 23MB file in about 5-10 seconds. When we
> >map the share to a drive letter and try to copy the file it takes 7
minutes
> >to copy the same file.
> >
> > The workstation is XP, the server is server2003. We have ruled out anti
> > virus. Has anyone comes accross issues when copying files via drive
letter
> > takes significantly longer than UNC?
> >
>
>