Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (
More info?)
http://www.ss64.com/nt/slow_browsing.html
--
Bob Dietz
Brian Selzer wrote:
> This is not a bandwidth issue: my client has two types of computers
> connecting to the same network share: 26 are running Windows 98, and 4 are
> running Windows XP. The Windows 98 machines list the folder in less than a
> second, whereas the Windows XP machines take half a minute. If it is an AV
> issue on the server, then Windows XP is probing the files' data in addition
> to their directory entries as it is loading the explorer window. (If that is
> happening, that's what I want to turn off!)
>
> I just found an article on the internet about increasing SizReqBuf to 65535
> to improve network share performance on Windows NT/2000/XP. There is another
> article about removing a registry key that facilitates listing task scheduler
> files. I don't know if either of these things will work, but I now have a
> few things to try when I go out there tomorrow.
>
> Thanks again for your input.
>
> "Walter Clayton" wrote:
>
>
>>OK. However one very critical thing you've glossed over and the first issue
>>to tear down misconceptions.
>>
>>All that information is gleaned on the server side. Now, how much is
>>presented over the network? How much real bandwidth is involved? Double
>>check your references.
>>
>>I'll also tell you straight up that when using explorer on the machine
>>locally, *ALL* that information is being processed the same as a remote
>>access. Permissions, etc. are an intrinsic part of the file structure. In
>>fact, the file structure has no idea, nor does it care, if the access is via
>>local log on or remote. Permissions, etc. are vetted regardless and there is
>>no way, for security reasons, that some of this information will be
>>transmitted over a network.
>>
>>People get fixated over NTFS and miss the obvious. Set aside the file
>>structure. I dare say you'd have issues whether the file structure is FAT,
>>HPFS, or a *ix specific file structure.
>>
>>Disable AV on the server and see what happens.
>>
>>--
>>Walter Clayton
>>Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
>>
>>
>>"Brian Selzer" <BrianSelzer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:3BC6040C-7814-4A28-B133-594B29FF911D@microsoft.com...
>>
>>>There is a lot more information stored in the directory of an NTFS volume
>>>than that of a FAT or FAT-32 volume. There is summary information, as
>>>well
>>>as additional housekeeping information, for example, ACL's and whether the
>>>file is compressed or encrypted. I read somewhere in the Microsoft
>>>Knowledge
>>>Base that Windows Explorer on a computer that supports NTFS reads this
>>>information when displaying the contents of a shared folder that resides
>>>on
>>>an NTFS volume. In addition, several Knowledge Base articles mention the
>>>transmission of this information with respect to network traffic
>>>performance,
>>>i.e. additional SMB packets required to retrieve it. The Windows 98 SE
>>>Explorer is unaware of the additional information, and thus does not
>>>retrieve
>>>it. I can only assume that the Windows XP Explorer by default retrieves
>>>the
>>>information if it is available when presenting the list of files. It is
>>>the
>>>only thing I can think of that would cause the delays.
>>>
>>>At the time that the files are being listed in Windows Explorer, they
>>>haven't yet been accessed--only directory information has been retrieved;
>>>therefore, the on-access anti-virus scan should not be a factor since it
>>>only
>>>activates when the data inside a file is read, not when the directory
>>>information is retrieved. The new Dell computers came with Norton
>>>Internet
>>>Security, but the same thing happens on my Tablet PC which is running
>>>McAfee
>>>VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.
>>>
>>>I am not sure what to tweak, since I haven't found a Microsoft Knowledge
>>>Base article that addresses this particular issue. I was hoping that
>>>someone
>>>from Microsoft would read my question and tell me which registry setting
>>>to
>>>change to turn off the new bells and whistles in Windows XP Explorer.
>>>
>>>This is a serious issue for my client. The perception that the new
>>>computers are slower than the old ones has caused them to stall the
>>>upgrade
>>>of their servers and the rest of their workstations. The delays affect
>>>the
>>>productivity of those who have already had their computer replaced, and as
>>>a
>>>result, they have asked for their old computers back. Because I
>>>recommended
>>>replacing the old Windows 98 computers with new Windows XP computers, this
>>>problem has damaged my credibility: it now appears to my client that I
>>>don't
>>>know what I'm doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your comments and any suggestions you may have,
>>>
>>>Brian Selzer,
>>>Master CNE, MCSE+I, MCDBA, etc., etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Walter Clayton" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Brian Selzer" <BrianSelzer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:14630757-1B8D-497C-A4B8-C5909E483374@microsoft.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On network shares with a large number of files, listing the directory
>>>>>on
>>>>>Windows XP running on new Dell with a 2.8GHz Pentium IV and 256MB RAM
>>>>>is
>>>>>much, much slower than on an old Compaq Prosignia desktop running
>>>>>Windows
>>>>>98
>>>>>SE on a 700Mhz Pentium III with 64MB RAM. The network share is on an
>>>>>NTFS
>>>>>volume, and I expect that is part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is there any way to limit
>>>>>Windows Explorer so that it doesn't try to retrieve additional
>>>>>information
>>>>>from files on a network share?
>>>>
>>>>Such as? Have you checked the properties for a file that are presented
>>>>over
>>>>the network as compared to what's available locally?
>>>>
>>>>What are you using for anti-virus on the XP machine? What kind of
>>>>'tweaking'
>>>>have you done?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Walter Clayton
>>>>Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
>>>>http://www.dts-l.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram