Vista Copy Speed over the network is slower that XP SP2 and OSX..much slower?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Sam, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. Sam

    Sam Guest

    We have a client with a new Vista Business x64 Workstation joined to a
    2003 (native) AD domain. The hardware specs are first class (64GB
    RAM, Dual Qaud core 3+GHz Intel Procs, Fastest SATA disks available,
    2 Uber Graphics card in SLI, Giabit NIC, etc.). This machine must move
    large amounts of data to a File Server's SAN frequently (hundreds of
    gigs per upload or download). The problem is uploads and downloads to
    this file server via mapped drive in Vista take considerably longer
    than either an XP Pro SP2 or MacBook Pro from THE SAME network jack.

    What we have done so far with minimal improvements if any:
    1. Disabled active AV scanning on the file server and removed it
    completely on the Vista workstation (were using Trend Micro).
    2. Disabled "Remote Differential Compression".
    3. Disabled SMB 2.0 via registry
    ***at this point the file transfer calculation seemed to start working
    correctly, previously it would estimate it would take 4+ hours to copy
    85Gb of test data when in reality it was finished much much sooner
    (several minutes but forget the exact number now)*** Client reported
    some speed improvements at this point but not that great. From the
    file server during the transfer (when this is the only transfer
    happening on the network) the Gigabit NIC on the server reports a
    network utilization of 30-40%.

    The entire building is wired with Fiber. The file server and SAN are
    connected to a Black Diamond switch with a 1-2GB fiber blade. The
    workstation is connected to a Allied Telesyn Media converter via
    copper/ethernet gigabit connection (media converter routed to same
    fiber blade).

    Next week Im going to do some bench marking with different operating
    systems, data, connections etc. I need to find a fiber card that has
    Vista x64 drivers and see if that helps.

    Any ideas on how I can improve this transfer speed?

    Thanks in Advance!

    Sam
     
    Sam, Jun 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sam

    Canuck57 Guest

    I tried for 3 weeks on this, abet in a different environment. Couldn't get
    any real improvement. But will watch this thread closely though as to me,
    this is one of Vista's major and serious faults.
     
    Canuck57, Jun 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Make sure to install SP1, then see the following:

    Bring network files closer:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=479&page=5

    Also, visit: http://www.diskeeper.com/products/documentation/documentation.asp
    and click on "Disk Performance Analyzer for Networks".

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience -
    Windows Vista Enthusiast

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    We have a client with a new Vista Business x64 Workstation joined to a
    2003 (native) AD domain. The hardware specs are first class (64GB
    RAM, Dual Qaud core 3+GHz Intel Procs, Fastest SATA disks available,
    2 Uber Graphics card in SLI, Giabit NIC, etc.). This machine must move
    large amounts of data to a File Server's SAN frequently (hundreds of
    gigs per upload or download). The problem is uploads and downloads to
    this file server via mapped drive in Vista take considerably longer
    than either an XP Pro SP2 or MacBook Pro from THE SAME network jack.

    What we have done so far with minimal improvements if any:
    1. Disabled active AV scanning on the file server and removed it
    completely on the Vista workstation (were using Trend Micro).
    2. Disabled "Remote Differential Compression".
    3. Disabled SMB 2.0 via registry
    ***at this point the file transfer calculation seemed to start working
    correctly, previously it would estimate it would take 4+ hours to copy
    85Gb of test data when in reality it was finished much much sooner
    (several minutes but forget the exact number now)*** Client reported
    some speed improvements at this point but not that great. From the
    file server during the transfer (when this is the only transfer
    happening on the network) the Gigabit NIC on the server reports a
    network utilization of 30-40%.

    The entire building is wired with Fiber. The file server and SAN are
    connected to a Black Diamond switch with a 1-2GB fiber blade. The
    workstation is connected to a Allied Telesyn Media converter via
    copper/ethernet gigabit connection (media converter routed to same
    fiber blade).

    Next week Im going to do some bench marking with different operating
    systems, data, connections etc. I need to find a fiber card that has
    Vista x64 drivers and see if that helps.

    Any ideas on how I can improve this transfer speed?

    Thanks in Advance!

    Sam
     
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Jun 20, 2008
    #3
  4. Sam

    Canuck57 Guest

    Canuck57, Jun 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Sam

    Sam Guest

    Carey,
    The only difference between mapped drives and shortcuts as described
    in the zdnet article is the ability to use more descriptive names,
    right? Is there a performance benefit from using a shortcut instead of
    mapped drive (as our client is accustomed to mapped drives)?

    Im going to give the "Disk Performance Analyzer for Networks" a shot
    on Monday.

    Thanks!

    Sam
     
    Sam, Jun 20, 2008
    #5
  6. Diskeeper 2008 has more powerful defragmentation engines. The “brains†behind
    Diskeeper 2008 contain an intelligent defrag function that detects volume and
    system conditions (e.g. low free space or heavy fragmentation) and
    dynamically chooses the most effective software engine to net performance
    gains on that system. This takes place automatically, on the fly, in real
    time.

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience -
    Windows System & Performance
     
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Jun 20, 2008
    #6
  7. Diskeeper 2008 has more powerful defragmentation engines. The “brainsâ€
    ".....it says here." Hah! Carey obviously gets taken in by the marketing
    bullshit. How naive.

    SteveT
     
    Steve Thackery, Jun 20, 2008
    #7
  8. Make sure you've got SP1. But even with SP1, lots of people are reporting
    network transfer speeds WAY lower than XP. This is an ongoing problem for
    Vista.

    Frankly, it's a major MS cock-up. They "fixed" something that most
    certainly was NOT broken, despite what they claim.

    SteveT
     
    Steve Thackery, Jun 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Sam

    Canuck57 Guest

    Huh?

    Defrag is defrag. Put the disk blocks in sequence that can be read faster.
    Not much else to it.

    What a digression, even Win95 defragged.

    Hopefully Win7 will be advanced enough not to need a defrag, like all the
    other OSes. Sorry, I can't resist the dig here as Vista should do this
    without the need for a third party product. Next issue, I too have the
    problem with copy in. Now I can't see a SATA 150 being slower than a 100BT.
    So what is the hold up? My Vista's own performance meter can't seem to go
    much past 5mbs. Don't say it is network, as without a cable change using
    Linux that goes to 100mbs, just under 20 times faster.
     
    Canuck57, Jun 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Sam

    Sam Guest

    He are the results of my testing. It is a “Vista while playing music”
    issue it seems. Doesn’t matter if said music is located locally or on
    the network. Or being played with WinAmp or iTunes. Same results with
    Vista32 and Vista64, Fiber and Copper (1GB). XP or OS X are not
    affected. Streaming audio from file servers and locally would be
    considered "business critical" in this environment.

    TO MACHINE OS Fiber to BD Copper to BD Notes
    MEDIA100 XP
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 1:25 to C After BIOS and NIC driver update.
    No running apps.
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 5:35 to C Winamp Playing music from Nicolo
    Orion32 XP SP2 “2-3 minutes” to C 1GB nForce Controller (NIC). No
    Music.
    Orion32 XP SP2 2 minutes to C WinApm playing music from Nicolo
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 5:30 (via 3Com 1GB fiber card) to C After
    ExtremeWare (BD) update to 7.7.
    Playing local music from C drive.
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 Less than 1 minute to C No apps running
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 5:30 to C Playing music from Nicolo.
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 1:20 to D No music playing
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 Less than 1 minute to C No music (other apps
    running)
    VEGA VISTA Business x64 5:40 to C WinAmp playing music from Nicolo.

    PhotoStudio Mac OS X 1:30 to C No music playing
    Vega VISTA Business x64 Less than 1 minute No Music
    ALI-LAP Vista Business x86 1:55 to C No music
    ALI-LAP Vista Business x86 4:20 to C Music playing from Nicolo
    ALI-LAP Vista Business x86 4:20 to C Music playing from local disk
    ( C )
    MEDIA100 XP “1-2 minutes” to C No music playing
    MEDIA100 XP “1-2 minutes” to C Music playing from Nicolo
     
    Sam, Jun 27, 2008
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.