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

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" <samuel.ali@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:21ed956b-44d5-4ed6-b5b7-71b07be729fd@xxxxxxI 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.

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/do...umentation.asp
and click on "Disk Performance Analyzer for Networks".

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

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

"Sam" <samuel.ali@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:21ed956b-44d5-4ed6-b5b7-71b07be729fd@xxxxxx
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]" <cnfrisch@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u$1fCiv0IHA.4948@xxxxxxI thought Vista defragged itself? Or is that broken too?

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

On Jun 20, 10:10 am, "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfri...@xxxxxx>
wrote:

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




"Canuck57" wrote:

> Diskeeper 2008 has more powerful defragmentation engines. The “brains�".....it says here." Hah! Carey obviously gets taken in by the marketing
bull****. How naive.

SteveT

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:805393B0-EEA8-42A6-BDBA-9FB73DA3A7F7@xxxxxx
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.

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


On Jun 20, 9:51 am, Sam <samuel....@xxxxxx> wrote: