Problem with Win2K - SMB

This is a discussion on Problem with Win2K - SMB ; I have 2 samba servers. I have a bunch of clients, most of them Win2K. The problem is the performance; it's very, very slow, -except- There's a Win95 box that goes pretty well. And another Win2K box that's been "off ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Problem with Win2K

  1. Problem with Win2K

    I have 2 samba servers. I have a bunch of clients, most of them Win2K.

    The problem is the performance; it's very, very slow, -except-

    There's a Win95 box that goes pretty well. And another Win2K box
    that's been "off the net" for a while, so is missing about 2 years of
    updates and fixes.

    This Win2K box that doesn't have the last 2 years of updates is way
    faster than all the other Win2K machines.

    Has anyone else seen this? Any idea which "fix" breaks it?


  2. Re: Problem with Win2K

    ghelbig@lycos.com wrote:
    > I have 2 samba servers. I have a bunch of clients, most of them
    > Win2K.
    >
    > The problem is the performance; it's very, very slow, -except-
    >
    > There's a Win95 box that goes pretty well. And another Win2K box
    > that's been "off the net" for a while, so is missing about 2 years of
    > updates and fixes.
    >
    > This Win2K box that doesn't have the last 2 years of updates is way
    > faster than all the other Win2K machines.
    >
    > Has anyone else seen this? Any idea which "fix" breaks it?


    Unsure. But your Win9x box is a member of a "Workgroup", and your Win2K
    boxes may be members of a "Domain". That can make for interesting
    performance issues.

    Alternatively, your Win2K boxes are all spyware loaded botnet zombies,
    except for the one that's been "off the net". And is there any reason to
    stick with Win2K instead of XP?



  3. Re: Problem with Win2K

    All the computers are members of the same workgroup. I don't use
    domains.

    The Win2K boxes are reasonably clean. I run AVG and AdAware on all the
    clients regularly, and did a full test just today.

    There are plenty of reasons to not "upgrade" to Win-XP. But I did try
    an XP client, and the performance is no better than the slow Win2K
    client.

    I've also been able to duplicate the trouble with a fresh install.
    Once all the updates are installed, it starts to crawl. With just SP4,
    and -no- other updates, the performance is pretty good: 5 to 10x faster
    than after the rest of the security fixes are applied.


  4. Re: Problem with Win2K


    wrote in message
    news:1144186656.248025.319190@t31g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
    > All the computers are members of the same workgroup. I don't use
    > domains.
    >
    > The Win2K boxes are reasonably clean. I run AVG and AdAware on all the
    > clients regularly, and did a full test just today.
    >
    > There are plenty of reasons to not "upgrade" to Win-XP. But I did try
    > an XP client, and the performance is no better than the slow Win2K
    > client.
    >
    > I've also been able to duplicate the trouble with a fresh install.
    > Once all the updates are installed, it starts to crawl. With just SP4,
    > and -no- other updates, the performance is pretty good: 5 to 10x faster
    > than after the rest of the security fixes are applied.
    >


    I guess "security" does not come for free. For example, for those who have
    used IPSEC where each packet is encrypted, there is a huge performance
    penalty. Another example is that I recently installed the lastest Vista
    beta, CTP build 5308 which came out Feb 2006. When running at the strictest
    security, it's extremely slow. When I dropped it to "medium" security, there
    is a very noticeable performance improvement.


  5. Re: Problem with Win2K

    Hi

    Can you read event log on slow workstation ?
    Any problem with master browser and election ?
    rds


  6. Re: Problem with Win2K

    Nothing of note in the event log. I can browse, it's just real slow.

    The "security" patches have little to do with network security. MS has
    started calling every bug fix a security patch. "A security issue has
    been found with the frambulator .... "

    I'm wondering if it's just one patch, or an interaction between
    several. There's a dozen or so since SP4.


  7. Re: Problem with Win2K

    Try Sniffer Pro or EtheReal for monitoring network

    Can you check out your switches ?

    100Mb/s or 1Gb/s, all your network adaptator are on Auto / Full / Half
    , may be may be

    RDS


  8. Re: Problem with Win2K


    wrote in message
    news:1144112017.289602.225490@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
    >I have 2 samba servers. I have a bunch of clients, most of them Win2K.
    >
    > The problem is the performance; it's very, very slow, -except-
    >
    > There's a Win95 box that goes pretty well. And another Win2K box
    > that's been "off the net" for a while, so is missing about 2 years of
    > updates and fixes.
    >
    > This Win2K box that doesn't have the last 2 years of updates is way
    > faster than all the other Win2K machines.
    >
    > Has anyone else seen this? Any idea which "fix" breaks it?
    >


    We had a problem with WinXP in AD. It turned out to be the shortcuts in the
    network neighborhood. See here: http://www.ss64.com/nt/slow_browsing.html

    It's unrelated to the domain or workgroup. Perhaps one of the updates added
    this slow browsing feature to Win2000 also. There are lots of work arounds
    as noted.




  9. Re: Problem with Win2K

    Cesar Neri wrote:
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:1144186656.248025.319190@t31g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
    > > All the computers are members of the same workgroup. I don't use
    > > domains.
    > >
    > > The Win2K boxes are reasonably clean. I run AVG and AdAware on all the
    > > clients regularly, and did a full test just today.
    > >
    > > There are plenty of reasons to not "upgrade" to Win-XP. But I did try
    > > an XP client, and the performance is no better than the slow Win2K
    > > client.
    > >
    > > I've also been able to duplicate the trouble with a fresh install.
    > > Once all the updates are installed, it starts to crawl. With just SP4,
    > > and -no- other updates, the performance is pretty good: 5 to 10x faster
    > > than after the rest of the security fixes are applied.
    > >

    >
    > I guess "security" does not come for free. For example, for those who have
    > used IPSEC where each packet is encrypted, there is a huge performance
    > penalty. Another example is that I recently installed the lastest Vista
    > beta, CTP build 5308 which came out Feb 2006. When running at the strictest
    > security, it's extremely slow. When I dropped it to "medium" security, there
    > is a very noticeable performance improvement.


    I think "security" is becoming more and more commercially
    exploited. Yes, maybe I'm trolling here, but I think it's
    idiotic to upgrade any Windows release even to SP4. Is there any
    way to really know what one is fixing by installing SP1? Or SP2?
    Or SP3? Or SP4? Right. One doesn't. Suppose Bill comes with
    SP11. Madness.

    All my clients have a clean XP. No SP's. The're behind a
    firewall which takes care of unsollicited traffic (and there is
    a lot of that!). My users cannot serve anything, and they don't
    even notice.
    The only thing I have to worry about is viruses. So the only
    "service release" I do on my clients is the installation of a
    good virus scanner.

    Daniel

  10. Re: Problem with Win2K

    I'll have to disgree there - updates which fix holes are 'a good
    thing'. Now, an example.

    Remember that SQL worm a few years back? The one which used the fact
    that MS SQL server was running unnoticed on most unpatched machines
    with the default password and a security hole? The one which generated
    so much traffic on the net, the net pretty much ground to a halt for a
    few hours?

    Well, I know a very large company which was behind firewalls and was
    unaffected. Lucky them.
    A couple of days later, someone high up in the company brought his
    laptop in to work and hooked it up to the company's internal network.
    BLAM. Someone lower down the food chain would have been it trouble for
    that, this guy was safe.


  11. Re: Problem with Win2K

    Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
    > I'll have to disgree there - updates which fix holes are 'a good
    > thing'. Now, an example.




    I'm not saying fixes are bad either. What *is* bad is that there is no
    clue as to what is actually being fixed, and what the side effects are.

    If I had either piece of data, my current task would be much less
    challenging.


  12. Re: Problem with Win2K

    ghelbig@lycos.com wrote:
    >
    > Vlad_Inhaler wrote:
    > > I'll have to disgree there - updates which fix holes are 'a good
    > > thing'. Now, an example.

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm not saying fixes are bad either. What *is* bad is that there is no
    > clue as to what is actually being fixed, and what the side effects are.
    >
    > If I had either piece of data, my current task would be much less
    > challenging.


    I assume that your original post was about the slowness of the
    network connection. Often, this is a DNS problem.

    In the old windows clients (Win9x) this was never a problem. XP
    and 200x are really NT, and NT has very strict rules with SMB
    (NetBIOS) connections.

    Check the WINS and DNS configurations on your *clients*. Don't
    let WINS use the LMHOSTS file and make sure that your client
    names are part of your domain name.

    Can you ping your clients by name?

  13. Re: Problem with Win2K

    That's not the problem at all. The problem is that the Win2K client
    SMB stack gets smacked when all of the service packs are installed.

    I can FTP to them by name. Matter of fact, if I create an FTP entry
    for the host in the client's Network Neighborhood (by name), I can
    read/write at almost wire rates.

    So there's no problem with the connection or name resolution.


+ Reply to Thread