98 file server/xp client slow -- any cure?

[Mike Scott]

It seems to be a known problem into which I've blundered that an XP
client reading files from a '98 server is slow.

The problem seems to be with the file open (or maybe close), because
on large files, I can get around 150Mbyte/min throughput, while small
ones drop to 0.2Mb/min or less. It's not a simple permissions
problem.

This leads to the embarrassing situation that my ancient slow 486
serving files from FreeBSD/samba works faster than a Duron 800 running
win98 (for the same directory tree). The same problem occurs with
either of my '98 machines as server; there's no problem with a '98
client - just xp.

I've spent a while searching the net, but to little avail. Is there a
cure for this ailment?

Thanks in advance.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

[jazz]

i had a simular problem and belive it or not the nic was bad. i replaced it
and it ran faster. just to see i replaced it into a win2000 machine and had
the same problem. but mine did this for all the win98 shares. it was a new
US Robotics too.


"Mike Scott" > wrote in message
...
> It seems to be a known problem into which I've blundered that an XP
> client reading files from a '98 server is slow.
>
> The problem seems to be with the file open (or maybe close), because
> on large files, I can get around 150Mbyte/min throughput, while small
> ones drop to 0.2Mb/min or less. It's not a simple permissions
> problem.
>
> This leads to the embarrassing situation that my ancient slow 486
> serving files from FreeBSD/samba works faster than a Duron 800 running
> win98 (for the same directory tree). The same problem occurs with
> either of my '98 machines as server; there's no problem with a '98
> client - just xp.
>
> I've spent a while searching the net, but to little avail. Is there a
> cure for this ailment?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
> Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
> various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
> regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

[Mike Scott]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 06:09:46 -0400, "jazz" >
wrote:

>i had a simular problem and belive it or not the nic was bad. i replaced it
>and it ran faster. just to see i replaced it into a win2000 machine and had
>the same problem. but mine did this for all the win98 shares. it was a new
>US Robotics too.

Hmm. Hard when it's on the mobo. The crazy thing is I've been
doodling tcp and udp clients and servers to saturate the ethernet link
- and I can't reproduce the problem at that level. The mobo nic and
the cheapo card I also have plugged in behave just the same; it seems
only to be for short file transfer. (But why would windows penalize a
built-in nic??)

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

[jazz]

this is a very interesting situation you are in. I am afraid I don't have
the answer for you. I was sharing a personal experience hoping it would
assist you in your dilemma.

on the other hand you said you couldn't reproduce it at a raw/primitive
level. this makes me think it may have something to do with the
authentification. I'm sure you have probably benchmark the network
performance but if you haven't here is a free tool I like to use called
Qcheck.
you can get it from http://www.netiq.com/qcheck/howqcheckworks.asp
(I believe it is still free.) this should help you rule out the possibility
that it is a wiring problem or such. the only other thing I can think of is
maybe the nic "media type" may be set to auto. this may have a problem
negotiating the transfer speed. I doubt it is likely but I have seen
problems like this with samba and win98 machines so it may be worth a look.
(network properties -nic card properties) I wish you the best of luck with
it.



"Mike Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 06:09:46 -0400, "jazz" >
> wrote:
>
> >i had a simular problem and belive it or not the nic was bad. i replaced
it
> >and it ran faster. just to see i replaced it into a win2000 machine and
had
> >the same problem. but mine did this for all the win98 shares. it was a
new
> >US Robotics too.
>
> Hmm. Hard when it's on the mobo. The crazy thing is I've been
> doodling tcp and udp clients and servers to saturate the ethernet link
> - and I can't reproduce the problem at that level. The mobo nic and
> the cheapo card I also have plugged in behave just the same; it seems
> only to be for short file transfer. (But why would windows penalize a
> built-in nic??)
>
> --
> Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
> Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
> various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
> regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

[Mike Scott]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:56:17 -0400, "jazz" >
wrote:

>this is a very interesting situation you are in. I am afraid I don't have
>the answer for you. I was sharing a personal experience hoping it would
>assist you in your dilemma.
>
>on the other hand you said you couldn't reproduce it at a raw/primitive
>level. this makes me think it may have something to do with the
>authentification. I'm sure you have probably benchmark the network
>performance but if you haven't here is a free tool I like to use called
>Qcheck.
>you can get it from http://www.netiq.com/qcheck/howqcheckworks.asp
>(I believe it is still free.) this should help you rule out the possibility
>that it is a wiring problem or such. the only other thing I can think of is
>maybe the nic "media type" may be set to auto. this may have a problem
>negotiating the transfer speed. I doubt it is likely but I have seen
>problems like this with samba and win98 machines so it may be worth a look.
>(network properties -nic card properties) I wish you the best of luck with
>it.
>

Thanks for the comments. After a week or effort, I finally found the
answer; and of course it's one of the most stupid things......

The nic has a choice of optimize for throughput or for cpu usage. I
think when delivered it was set for best cpu usage; I seem to
remember early on changing it to "best throughput" -- it seemed a good
idea at the time: except someone seems to have labelled the options
the wrong way round! In desperation, I switched it to the optimise
for cpu setting - and the data rate rocketed a 100-fold. cpu usage
has sky-rocketed as well, and stands at around 20-25% when reading a
large number of files.


keywords: nf7/s slow network file read nic low throughput



--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)