Vista - Copying Large Files Over The Network....Extreamly SLOW

I am experiencing incredibly poor performance when copying and moving
files, and yes, even calculating the time to move the files takes just as
long as actually moving the damn files! As this is one of the most basic
features of an OS, you'd think they would ensured it would work correctly.
Seems they've spent more time making things look pretty than actually making
sure the basics work.
I've also noticed that copying files over a network is even worse; on
several occasions I've had to leave it copying files overnight as it was
going to take 3 hours to move 200Mb of files - ridiculous. XP shifted the
files in a couple of minutes. I can't believe they've not done any
benchmarking on this and picked this up pre-release.


I have tried:

1. Running "netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disable" (Did Not Work)

2. Installing the hotfix at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/931770 (Did Not Work)

2a. Hotfixes can be found here:
http://hotfix.xable.net/download/ind...Neutral/Vista/

3. Tried going to Control Panel -> Programs And Features and unchecked
"Remote Differential Compression" (Did Not Work)

4. Disabling the Windows Search service "SearchIndexer.exe" (Did Not Work)

5. Tried going to Control panel -> Folder options -> show icons, never
thumbnails (Did Not Work)

I am all out of ideas. This is a real MS problem. This is one problem that
could take Vista right out of the picture............ for good. Looks like
MS dropped the ball on Vista....even more so than with WinME

D

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:45:48 -0400, "-Draino-" <guest@unknown.com>

> I am experiencing incredibly poor performance when copying and moving
>files, and yes, even calculating the time to move the files takes just as
>long as actually moving the damn files!

I've seen this as well, and it's so irritating I've taken to doing
bulk moves "from orbit" (Bart CDR boot) or using an alternate file
manager, such as 2xExplorer.

>As this is one of the most basic features of an OS, you'd think they
>would ensured it would work correctly.

It was AFWUL during the beta, when even waiting for a folder to be
listed took forever. So it's improved, but...

>Seems they've spent more time making things look pretty than
>actually making sure the basics work.

I think it's a scalability problem from too much per-file overhead,
possibly involving content groping that may expose exploit surfaces
and/or trip over bad sectors and corrupted files.

When the link is slow (e.g. LAN share) this gets worse. The impact is
worse too, when source is off-system (infection risk) and where the
source may fail (dial-up, wonky scratched CDRs, etc.)

Possible causes:
- shadow copy, esp. if a "backup" is pending
- av, indexers, thumbnailers
- other content handlers and shell integrations
- namespace issues

>I've also noticed that copying files over a network is even worse

As above.

Have you tried FATxx to FATxx copies, to exclude NTFS BS?


>-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -