Ok, sorry for not responding in the last couple of days, but I was away and
also wanted to make sure it was not a cable problem first.
I also archived a lot of older messages in Outlook, so the Outlook.pst file
is now down to 1.5 GB from 3 GB.
So, when I came back home today, I got the same error several times when
transfering the Outlook.pst file from the laptop to the desktop. I then used
another known good CAT5 cable to connect the laptop to the router, just in
case... at first things appeared to be going fine and I was going like
'ooops, bad cable, now I'm embarassed', then, bang, same thing, network
transfer goes down to zero for several seconds, resumes for a couple of
seconds, back to zero and error. So the bad cable theory was out.
Since I was in a hurry, and because disabling the Eset firewall had enabled
the transfer to complete the other day, I disabled the firewall in both
computers. This time the whole 1.5 GBs went in a single gulp at maximum
transfer speed (about 11 MB/s)! Hmmm...
So this time I checked the firewall logs. Guess what? On the laptop computer
(the SOURCE computer) there are several entries (one for each failed file
transfer) stating the following:
Detected TCP Desynchronization Attack
In the end this seems to be a problem between the Eset firewall and the
method Vista uses to transfer large files over the network. Since I am an
Eset beta tester, the next step is to let them know about the problem.
"Julian" <> wrote in message
news:...
> There are other ways too - see Adi Oltean's Blog entry on "A Simple Way to
> Access Shadow Copies in Vista" at
> http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/arch...-in-vista.aspx
Thanks!
> Just because the destination PST was deleted doesn't mean VSS (Volume
> ShadowCopy Service) isn't attending to it... it works at the block level,
Makes all the sense in the world, thanks! :-)
> You don't by any chance have wireless and wired lans in operation
> simultaneously do you?
At home I only have a WIRED connection.
> One other thought - Have you checked that IPv6 is off if you don't use it?
> Could be a contributory factor...
IPv6 is enabled. But given the above, I guess this was not a contributing
factor in this case...
Thanks for the help, Julian! :-)