Slow Network Access

Topic

New Reply

My new Toshiba Satellite laptop is running WinXP Pro. My pre-existing setup consists of two PCs running Win98 and Win98SE with a parallel printer connected to each one, networked together, thru a hub, with a peer-to-peer Windows network. The two older PCs have no problem accessing the shared C: drive on each PC. However when, on the WinXP PC, I try for example to drag a file from an older PC to the WinXP PC, there are big delays. For example, if I right-click on a file on the other PC in Windows Explorer it takes 10-15 seconds for the click to be acknowledged and another 10-15 seconds for the Copy to take place when I click Copy in the right-click menu.

I’ve read about the Win2k “Scheduled Tasks” registry entry and I’ve found and deleted it in my WinXP registry today and that did reduce the delays involved — the delays used to be more than 30 seocnds.

Any idea how to reduce these delays?

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Replies

Hi Bill,

Does this happen only the first time you access a share on another computer, and then not again? And did you use the XP network setup wizard on your 98 PCs, or something else?

I don’t know how familiar you are with networking settings so I will keep this simple. If you need more assistance please let us know by replying to this post.

Three things that I would check:

1. Make sure all PCs are members of the same workgroup. XP defaults to MSHOME while all other Windows versions default to WORKGROUP.
2. Remove any unnecessary protocols – all you should need is TCP/IP over your network adapter. Don’t change any dial-up settings.
3. Set a static IP address for each computer. It can be anything you choose, really, although I would personally opt for something in the 192.68.xx.xx range. Just a personal preference.

Important thing to remember!!!!! If you set static IP addresses and have file sharing enabled, please please please use a decent firewall. XP has one built in but it’s hard to configure. ">Home Networking
Home Firewall Guide

Hopefully this will give you enough to get your speed problem fixed.

Reply | Quote

I seem to recall that XP likes static IP addresses for peer-peer nets in the range 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.254

Reply | Quote

Mark,

[indent]

---

Does this happen only the first time you access a share on another computer, and then not again?

---

[/indent]
No, it happens all the time.

[indent]

---

And did you use the XP network setup wizard on your 98 PCs, or something else?

---

[/indent]
The network on the Win98 PCs has been in use for a long time. It uses the ICS feature in one of the PCs to handle Internet access. When I plugged the Ethernet cable into the built-in NIC in the WinXP laptop and started it up it was able to communicate on the network without any problem except the delays! So, I really haven’t done any network setup recently.

[indent]

---

Make sure all PCs are members of the same workgroup. XP defaults to MSHOME while all other Windows versions default to WORKGROUP.

---

[/indent]
My WinXP Pro came with the “workgroup” workgroup name so I didn’t have to do anything. (I’ve seen a message that said that only XP Home comes with the MSHOME workgroup.)

[indent]

---

Remove any unnecessary protocols – all you should need is TCP/IP over your network adapter. Don’t change any dial-up settings.

---

[/indent]
I’ve checked all three PCs and TCP/IP is the only protocol configured.

[indent]

---

Set a static IP address for each computer. It can be anything you choose, really, although I would personally opt for something in the 192.68.xx.xx range. Just a personal preference.

---

[/indent]
I believe that dynamic IP addresses are currently being used. Can static addresses be used in a network that uses the ICS feature in a Win98SE PC? If so, can you tell me where all I have to set the static addresses?

[indent]

---

If you set static IP addresses and have file sharing enabled, please please please use a decent firewall.

---

[/indent]
I’ve been meaning to download ZoneAlarm for a good while. I’ll certainly do that now. I’ve noticed that WinXP has a built-in firewall but I don’t know anything about it and my ICS host is running Win98SE.

Thanks for the information links.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Bill, I’d like to make a suggestion since you are running a hub. I’m assuming that you are sharing a broadband connection – e.g. cable, DSL. If all computers are connected via CAT-5 (Ethernet) cable to the hub, disable ICS. Let each computer access the hub in its own time. You should have a firewall on each – ZoneAlarm, if that’s your preference . The fact that you are having slow reponses every time the network is accessed is good – consistent problems are easier to troubleshoot than sporadic ones and this suggests that it is a software setting.

I’d recommend running the XP Networking Wizard and performing the same steps on each computer. Do it on the XP box first, and at the end of the wizard, it will prompt you to create a floppy. Do that, and take the floppy to each 98 machine and run the networking wizard on them as well.

You want to make sure that you choose the option in the wizard that states that you are using a hub. You’ll get a warning that M$ doesn’t really want you to do that but this is YOUR network, not theirs. Installing the wizard on the 98 PCs will require a reboot.

To change IP addresses for the copmputers, you will need to go to the properties of the network connection in XP, and in 98 you will right-click on Network Neighborhood, select properties, and then modify the TCP/IP -> Network Card entry. The addresses can be whatever you want, but as Moniq posted, the 192.168.xx.xx range is purported to give better results.

Another note, you should disable the XP firewall before you install ZoneAlarm. While it’s effective, it really is a pain in the neck to configure, and ZA provides nice little popups for each network connection and program that wants network access. You can use static IPs with ICS, but I really do think that ICS is a half-baked implementation designed to provide a feature in the usual Microsoft fashion – it works, but there are better choices.

Reply | Quote

Mark,

## Bill, I’d like to make a suggestion since you are running a hub. I’m assuming that you are sharing a broadband connection – e.g. cable, DSL. If all computers are connected via CAT-5 (Ethernet) cable to the hub, disable ICS. Let each computer access the hub in its own time. ##

No, I’m using a normal 56K dial-up modem on the desktop PC for all access to the Internet! I do have Cat-5 cable from each PC to the hub.

I’ll try the other things you suggested but I’m going to wait and see if you think they are still appropriate after seeing the information above.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

OK. Here’s what I would suggest then – if it doesn’t work you can always go back.

The PC that is used for Internet access….connect its CAT-5 to the “Uplink” on the hub. Plug the other two PCs into other ports – remember that you cannot use port 1, next to the uplink, because the two are cross-wired inside the hub. Remove ICS and run the XP wizard. This time, however, the PC with the Internet connection is the gateway PC, and the others share the connection through the hub.

Also, if you could post details on your current connection method (geekspeak: Network Topology) it would be extremely helpful in tracking the problem down, I believe.

Reply | Quote

Mark,

## …connect its CAT-5 to the “Uplink” on the hub. …##
OK, I’ll try that during the next day or two. That’s a configuration that I have never heard of!

## Also, if you could post details on your current connection method (geekspeak: Network Topology) it would be extremely helpful in tracking the problem down, I believe. ##
I’m not real sure what details you are looking for. I’ll supply some and you can ask for any additional things that might be helpful.

Actually, I have 4 PCs on the network but the old 486 Gateway running Win95 is powered up only on rare occasions. Will it work in the new network configuration? Maybe I better get prepared before making the change if it won’t.

1. IBM Aptiva (330 MHz) running Win98SE and a 10/100 NIC card.
2. Toshiba Satellite 4020CDT (300 MHz) running Win98 and a 10/100 PCMCIA Ethernet card.
3. Tohsiba Satellite 1800 (1 GHz) running WinXP Pro with a built-in 10/100 Ethernet interface.
4. Gateway 2000 (slow!) running Win95 with a 10/100 NIC card.

The Gateway has not been powered up since the WinXP machine was connected to the network. The others use only TCP/IP protocol (I haven’t checked the Gateway). Each has a Cat-5 cable connected to a 4-port “10Base-T/100Base-TX Dual Speed Repeater” from Hawking.

I don’t know what else I can tell you about my network. Let me know if there are other details you would like to know.

BTW, there other times when the WinXP machine seems to be totally tied up doing something invisible. For example, after plugging my DeskJet 520 printer into the WinXP machine and powering it up I opened the Printers dialog and double-clicked Add Printer. It must have taken well over a minute for the Add Printer dialog to open! When I tried it again just now the Add Printer dialog opened immediately. It does print fine when the printer is directly connected.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Hi Bill

Couple of things that may help.

1)Check reliability of Laptop NIC
a)From XP Command Prompt type the command
net statistics workstation

b)Try some network activity, eg. browsing one of the W98 PCs.

c)Repeat the above command

d)Look for any error statistics that have incremented. If “network errors” has incremented, then you may have a flaky cable or connection. Try swapping cables and see if the problem moves.

2)Change XP QOS setting
This is less likely to fix your problem, but, there have been reports of delays in Microsoft Networking (ie. your internal Lan) being fixed with this.

See “Think I’m Nuts” in the above link for details on changing QOS settings.

Reply | Quote

I’ve run through your #1 suggestion. The network errors has remained 0 throughout the test. There were some other values, other than the Bytes and Block data, that were not 0:

Connections made: 39
Sessions started: 54
Failed operations: 18
Use Count: 24
everything else: 0

The Failed operations was 10 when I looked at the first set of statistics.

I read the article you referenced in #2 and I enabled QOS and set its value to 0. As you suspected, I didn’t see any effect from this change.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

You should not be seeing Failed Operations on a local LAN unless you are getting collisions (unlikely on a 2 node test with 100Tx). I think we need to drill down a level.

We are going to run more XT command prompt tests.

For the purposes of this example I am assuming you have a PC named “STAT1” with a share of “C”.

From the command prompt window type the command
netstat -s
Record the information shown

Now type the command (replacing the host and share name as needed)
dir STAT1C /S

Finally repeat the command
netstat -s
And record the differences shown. There should be no errors with just two stations active.

Reply | Quote

Bill:

I have just re-read this entire thread and I am starting to feel there may be a problem specific to your XP notebook. The simple way to check this is to press Ctrl-Alt-Del to start the Task Manager and then select the Performance tab.

On my XP system, with effectively nothing active except this browser window I show only 0-1% busy in idle state and avg 2% peak 8% busy running the same test to a W98 Celeron 400 system. If your idle or busy states are substantially different from this then you have some background job that is messing up your system.

Reply | Quote

Ian, when you said “running the same test to a W98” I’ve assumed that you are referring to the netstat test you described in your previous message and that the WinXP PC should be doing a DIR on another PC on my network (not on the WinXP). BTW, there are normally 3 active PCs on my network, the WinXP plus a Win98 and a Win98SE. During my test the Win98 was running but not doing anything, the Win98SE is my ICS host and it was not doing anything except its ICS host duties with the dial-up connection connected, and the WinXP was running the test.

Before and after the netstat test the idle value runs between 2% and 4% and sometimes hits 1% and maybe 5%. During the DIR test the busy time seemed to act differently during different parts of the test — the test took 10-20 minutes I would guess. During the early stages and the last stages there were frequent bursts that had peaks around 60% and valleys around 20% and occasional idles of 1-4% and an occasional short peak up to about 90%. In the middle, when it seemed to be reporting Internet files, it would run 20%-60% bursts of about 70 seconds and then 1%-4% idle time of 45-60 seconds. It alternated between these burst and idle segments fairly consistently for at least 10 minutes. Each time it began one of those idle segments the display was at the summary line (nnn Files mmmmm Bytes) for a folder. I captured the before and after data by piping the netstat command output into text files. I have recorded all the numbers that changed in a second column in the attached file. If you display this file in the Courier font or an equivalent the columns should line up properly.

If this is not exactly the test you were looking for or if there are additional test I can run, please let me know.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Bill:
You ran the correct test. You definitely have something wrong (but you knew that at the start).

Your idle state load probably means that your problem is not a background process such as FindFast or Indexer. It is a bit higher than mine, but not enough to indicate any major problems.

Your long pauses and very high peak loads are indicative of thrashing and timeouts in the network processes. But, the netstat info does not show that these errors are occuring at the network layers. They also seem to eliminate the likelhood of a cabling problem.

Ummmm….

Ok. One more test while I do some research.

I want you to download some file from a usually reliable source , eg. Tucows of approximately 300K. This size should download in 1-2 minutes depending on connection speed. This test should be run three times, once from the W98 system that does NOT host your ICS, once from the W98 system that does host your ICS, and once from your XP system. The modem should be continuously connected during these test to ensure that differences in connection speeds are not a factor.

Record the times required to complete these tests and the DUN connection speed (from the ICS host system).

[scratching my head][breaking out technet]

Edited later to eliminate duplicate content in message. Tx Leif.

Reply | Quote

Ian, I’ve run those download tests. The timing is pretty tricky because WinXP and maybe the others begin the download before I say to Go! On my first attempt WinXP beat the others by 20 seconds but I noticed that when the progress dialog came up it showed a significant amount already done! I did them over and started my timing at a point where it looked like the network activity must be associated with the download rather than IE display updating. Here are the results:

ICS Host: 67 seconds
Win98: 68 seconds
WinXP: 70 seconds

The differences could certainly be accounted for in my estimation of the starting point so they seem to be virtually identical.

The reported DUN speed was 45333 bps and the file size was reported as 338.1 KB

I *must* figure out how much my estimated tax payments need to be today so I can get them in tomorrow so take your time with your next suggestions!

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Bill:

Those tests confirmed what I expected. You are not having any problems at the basic network layers. And yes, when you factor in the differences accounted for by the Internet, they are effectively identical.

Your problems seem to be in the NetBios layer. A kludge which may work around the problem is to add the NetBeui protocol to all your systems.

Sorry for the fast response.

Good luck with your taxes.

Reply | Quote

Ian,

I’ve read that the NetBeui protocol is not supplied in WinXP but that it can be added. Do you know where I would get it from to try your suggestion?

Bill

Reply | Quote

KB Q301041 HOW TO: Install NetBEUI on Windows XP

Reply | Quote

Ian,

Well, you found the magic key! Congratulations! I installed the NetBeui protocol on all three PCs yesterday (using the link you supplied in the other message) but I didn’t have time to test it. I just finished testing and dragging files across the network and printing across the network both work almost perfectly now! I’ll mention a couple of questions/problems below. Is this adding NetBeui a good long-term solution of does it just point us in the direction of a better solution?

If this change hadn’t helped, I though the next step might be to do part of Marks suggestion. I thought I would pull the ICS host off the network temporarily (I don’t want to have to re-install the ICS host if I can avoid it) and then run the XP Network wizard on the remaining two PCs and see if that helped. If it did, then I would hope I could activate the ICS client in the Win98 PC again and have all three work together again! The purpose, of course, would be to let the XP Network Wizard configure the network and see if that makes difference. Does it sound like there is any reason to go through that exercise?

The two puzzles:
1) When I print a small text (.Bat) file from the WinXP on my direct-connected DeskJet 520 printer it takes about 18 seconds to complete. When I print it over the network on the DeskJet 720C printer it takes about 65 seconds! That printing process sounds like it is doing the raster-scan kind of printing instead of plain text printing. When I print the same file from the PC that the DJ 720C is connected to, it prints in no more than 18 seconds. All the printing is from Notepad. Any ideas?

2) When I use the right-click drag method to copy a file from one folder to another on the WinXP (or across the network) the destination folder is not highlighted while the right-click menu is displayed. Normally (i.e., in Win98), when I right-click on a file I immediately see a ghost image of the file and I can drag that ghost image to some other folder and that folder is highlighted. That works the same on WinXP. When I release the right button the context menu pops up and the destination folder is still highlighted so I can confirm that I’m Copying or Moving the file into the correct folder. On WinXP the destination folder is not highlighted after the right button is released and about half the time the file is copied into the folder below the intended one! That’s a significant disadvantage! Any ideas?

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

Is this adding NetBeui a good long-term solution of does it just point us in the direction of a better solution?

---

[/indent]
It could be long term for you. I am starting to see a pattern emerge with some NICs and XP. (Un)fortunately, it has never happened on a system I was working on, so I have not been able to do any real testing on the problem.

[indent]

---

Does it sound like there is any reason to go through that exercise?

---

[/indent]
No

[indent]

---

1) When I print a small text (.Bat) file from the WinXP on my direct-connected DeskJet 520 printer it takes about 18 seconds to complete. When I print it over the network on the DeskJet 720C printer it takes about 65 seconds! That printing process sounds like it is doing the raster-scan kind of printing instead of plain text printing. When I print the same file from the PC that the DJ 720C is connected to, it prints in no more than 18 seconds. All the printing is from Notepad. Any ideas?

---

[/indent]
Probably a bad setting in the network printer driver on your XP system.

[indent]

---

2) When I use the right-click drag method to copy a file from one folder to another on the WinXP (or across the network) the destination folder is not highlighted while the right-click menu is displayed. Normally (i.e., in Win98), when I right-click on a file I immediately see a ghost image of the file and I can drag that ghost image to some other folder and that folder is highlighted. That works the same on WinXP. When I release the right button the context menu pops up and the destination folder is still highlighted so I can confirm that I’m Copying or Moving the file into the correct folder. On WinXP the destination folder is not highlighted after the right button is released and about half the time the file is copied into the folder below the intended one! That’s a significant disadvantage! Any ideas?

---

[/indent]
Nope. Maybe someone else can give you a hand.

Reply | Quote

Ian,

I’ll look for a printer driver adjustment that will make it print text files in text mode.

On right-click Copying or Moving files, since you didn’t say “that’s the way WinXP works” (which I expected!) I’ll assume that you do not see the same thing that I’m seeing. Is that true?

Thanks for all your help on this.

Bill

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

On right-click Copying or Moving files, since you didn’t say “that’s the way WinXP works” (which I expected!) I’ll assume that you do not see the same thing that I’m seeing. Is that true?

---

[/indent]
That is correct. I just tested in Windows Explorer and the destination folder was properly hilited. One thing I did notice is that it seems to be better to move your mouse a bit to the right of the folder name in the left panel.

Reply | Quote

Ian,

Since I’m getting an unusual response to right-dragging and this is a long thread, I think I’ll post a new message about that problem.

Thanks for your response on the Full-Duplex issue too. I’ll leave it alone.

Bill

Reply | Quote

PS: If you have a restore CD instead of an XP setup CD check here for the necessary files.

Reply | Quote

Bill,

Might be a longshot, but here’s something else you can try.

How to Reset Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) in Windows XP (Q299357)

Reply | Quote

Mark,

I just read that article and ran the suggested command. It didn’t seem to make any difference.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Mark:

Are you sure that will work? The uplink port is the same as a cross-over connect to a standard port. Normally a station can NOT use the uplink port, just another hub.

Reply | Quote

I’m basing this on my situation at the office, which is similar.

Hub #1 connects three PCs, and the uplink port on it is attached to a Novell server. The fourth port runs to another hub in another room, connecting to its uplink port. This secondary hub serves two systems in this manner. Aside from the version of Novell I have to contend with it works beautifully.

I don’t know if I was very clear on what I intended here. What I want Bill to try is to use the PC with the modem as the “server” in the above scenario, connecting its network cable to the uplink, and then the other two systems would connect on ports 2-4 since port 1 cannot be used in conjunction with the uplink.

Reply | Quote

Hi Bill,
This may be a bit of a shot in the dark, but have you checked that the Internet Connection Firewall is disabled on the network adapter of your XP machine?
Also, can you ping the other 2 machines from your XP machine OK (I’d expect sub 10ms response times with your configuration).

Reply | Quote

Rory:

The Firewall is an interesting thought. I might play with that here (put Zone Alarm to the side and test the impact of the Firewall on local traffic).

The ping should be working fine. The download test and the other tests prove that basic TCP/IP (the only current protocol) is working.

Reply | Quote

I’ve found that when using ZoneAlarm with XP machines on my home network that it will not allow communication at all, unless you specify the host name in the advanced settings. ZoneAlarm then resolves the host name to an IP address, and it seems to work acceptably after that point. I haven’t performed any latency tests with it out of the equation, though, so that would be an interesting test.

Only a geek like me qould be rubbing his hands together at the prospect of a network latency test!

Reply | Quote

You don’t need to specify the host name. Just enable the adapter subnet in Security | Advanced.

Reply | Quote

When you enable the adapter subnet, do you mean to list the static IP assigned to each of the computers on the network? My computers are in the 90.0.0.1…10 range. The 90.0.0.1 system runs WinProxy and handles the Internet connection. When i used ZoneAlarm i seemed to have a lot of problems getting systems to see each other. So i dropped it while I continued to troubleshoot the network. I also had constant blocking messages on my machine saying it was blocking *internet* access from another computer (on my internal network) to another computer (also on the internal network) It all was simply too confusing at the time and didn’t seem logical!
Lori

Reply | Quote

Restore the Zone Alarm Control Panel.
Click the Security Tab
Click the Advanced Button
Check the LAN adapter for your local network
Click OK to apply changes

Reply | Quote

Rory,

I checked and the firewall was disabled for the network connection but not for the dial-up connection that is also configured. I don’t believe the dial-up connection would have any impact on these problems — I’m not using it normally. I did go ahead and disable the XP filewall for that connection.

I pinged each of the other two PCs, using both their name and their current IP address. Each ping apparently received 4 replies and each one reported “<1ms". Below the 4 reporting lines the Approximate round trip times reported 0ms for Min, Max and Average in every case.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

I don’t run XP since I refuse to install anything that includes the Registration/Activation Wizard. However, I once had a similar problem on an NT 4 system. The problem there turned out to be that the network adapter was set to run Full Duplex. Changing it to run Half Duplex solved the problem. It might be worth a try.

Reply | Quote

Good thought Legare.

Reply | Quote

Legare,

I’m having trouble finding where to check for full-duplex versus half-duplex. Can you tell me where you look on your NT system?

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

I don’t have an NT system anymore, but on my W2K system you go the Control Panel and open up the Network CP. Then Right click on the Local Area Connection and select Properties. Click on the Advanced tab and Select Media Type in the list. Click on the arrow on the drop down list to get the speed and Duplex options.

Reply | Quote

Legare,

Thanks for the details. The details are different on WinXP but I did find it finally and it is currently set to Auto Detect. Should these networks always use Half-Duplex? If so, why is Full-Duplex also in the list? My Win98 is also set to Auto Sense.

Thanks,
Bill

Reply | Quote

Bill:

You should be fine as is. Your hub will probably show a full duplex connection state. The duplex issue was when we were still clutching at straws.

Reply | Quote

I have not read the entire thread but there is one more thing to do this decreased my access time accross the network from a share drive opening in over a minute to opening in 5-10 seconds. Remove the following registry entry.
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionExplorerRemoteComputerNameSpace{D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}]
@=”Scheduled Tasks”
As always when in the guts of the registry back up!

Reply | Quote