Slow network tranfers

I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy issue.

I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.

One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was to
disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has Vista
drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work. This has
apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.

Anyone ?

My workaround was to put the NIC properties 'speed tab' to half duplex. I
found I could go back to full duplex after Vista 'learned' the path. Took a
few days.

--
Was this helpful? Then click the Ratings button. Voting helps the web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales....htm#RateAPost

Mark L. Ferguson

..

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5D570E58286thisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
> I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy
> issue.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.
>
> One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was to
> disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has Vista
> drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work. This has
> apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.
>
> Anyone ?
>
>
>

The issue is apparently addressed, to some extent, in the pending release of
sp1

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5D570E58286thisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
>I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy issue.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.
>
> One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was to
> disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has Vista
> drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work. This has
> apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.
>
> Anyone ?
>
>
>

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5D570E58286thisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
>I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy issue.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.
>
> One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was to
> disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has Vista
> drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work. This has
> apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.
>


Here's a good technical explanation of why the problem occurs.

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx

I'm guessing in the case you cite it was more to do with the NIC driver
Vista compatibility than anything else. SP1 may help you. In my testing of
SP1 (both x86 and x64) file copying to/from Server 2003/XP shares is much
faster while network copies to/from Server 2008/Vista shares is slightly
slower. This assumes that all your network hardware including switches,
routers, NICs, etc. support all the advanced features in Vista/Server 2008
networking.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

DanS <> wrote:

>I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy issue.
>
>I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.
>
>One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was to
>disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has Vista
>drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work. This has
>apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.

That would imply to me that the onboard NIC was slow and the new,
separate card was much faster. Maybe the builtin one is 10mb/s
ethernet and the new one is 100mb/s ethernet? That could make a LARGE
difference in copy speed.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Tim Slattery <> wrote in
news::

> DanS <> wrote:
>
>>I got some info out of another group regarding the slow-network-copy
>>issue.
>>
>>I was just wondering if anyone can confirm or deny.
>>
>>One fix that had seemed to work across the board for this person was
>>to disable the on-board NIC and install a separate card (that has
>>Vista drivers) and of course, after all other 'fixes' didn't work.
>>This has apparently worked each time on more than 10 computers.
>
> That would imply to me that the onboard NIC was slow and the new,
> separate card was much faster. Maybe the builtin one is 10mb/s
> ethernet and the new one is 100mb/s ethernet? That could make a LARGE
> difference in copy speed.

You might think, but when was the last time you saw a NIC that 10 mbps only
?

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5D6AAB121D9thisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
>>
>> That would imply to me that the onboard NIC was slow and the new,
>> separate card was much faster. Maybe the builtin one is 10mb/s
>> ethernet and the new one is 100mb/s ethernet? That could make a LARGE
>> difference in copy speed.
>
> You might think, but when was the last time you saw a NIC that 10 mbps
> only
> ?

Yeah. 100BASE-T had long been the standard when onboard ethernet began to
be common on motherboards (around 2002?). I doubt that any motherboards
ever came with onboard 10BASE-T - except maybe some compact office units in
the 90's. Most home users used dial-up those days and had no use for
ethernet networking anyway.

Onboard gigabit has been common for the last three years or so, and now
dual-gigabit is common.

ss.

Since one would hope that most recently purchased Vista machines (for office
domain use) have Vista drivers for their NIC cards. With that being said, any
NIC drv issues would be at the server. Of course, MS doesn't appear to offer
Vista drvs for NICs via WinUpdate.

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:

> "DanS" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A5D6AAB121D9thisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
> >>
> >> That would imply to me that the onboard NIC was slow and the new,
> >> separate card was much faster. Maybe the builtin one is 10mb/s
> >> ethernet and the new one is 100mb/s ethernet? That could make a LARGE
> >> difference in copy speed.
> >
> > You might think, but when was the last time you saw a NIC that 10 mbps
> > only
> > ?
>
> Yeah. 100BASE-T had long been the standard when onboard ethernet began to
> be common on motherboards (around 2002?). I doubt that any motherboards
> ever came with onboard 10BASE-T - except maybe some compact office units in
> the 90's. Most home users used dial-up those days and had no use for
> ethernet networking anyway.
>
> Onboard gigabit has been common for the last three years or so, and now
> dual-gigabit is common.
>
> ss.
>
>
>

"RoninV" <> wrote in message
news:281840EC-A500-4216-8014-...
> Of course, MS doesn't appear to offer
> Vista drvs for NICs via WinUpdate.

If you do not have a driver for your NIC, how would you access Windows
Update anyway?

ss.

I didn't write that I "have no driver." I simply indicated that an updated
driver may not be available via WinUpdate.

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:

> "RoninV" <> wrote in message
> news:281840EC-A500-4216-8014-...
> > Of course, MS doesn't appear to offer
> > Vista drvs for NICs via WinUpdate.
>
> If you do not have a driver for your NIC, how would you access Windows
> Update anyway?
>
> ss.
>
>
>