"Chuck" wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
> >
> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
> >
> >Any takers?
>
> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
>
> There are two directions the data can move.
> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
>
> There are two ways to run the transfer.
> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
>
> This gives you 4 tests to run.
> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>
> There are various ways to move the data.
> 1) Using FTP.
> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
>
> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
> Or connected to,thru the network?
>
> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
> * Disk fragmentation.
> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
> of?
>
> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>
>
>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
>> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
>> >
>> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
>> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
>> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
>> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
>> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
>> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
>> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
>> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
>> >
>> >Any takers?
>>
>> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
>> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
>>
>> There are two directions the data can move.
>> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
>> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
>>
>> There are two ways to run the transfer.
>> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
>> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
>>
>> This gives you 4 tests to run.
>> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>>
>> There are various ways to move the data.
>> 1) Using FTP.
>> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
>> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
>>
>> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
>> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
>> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
>> Or connected to,thru the network?
>>
>> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
>> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
>> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
>> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
>> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
>> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
>> * Disk fragmentation.
>> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
>> of?
>>
>> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
>> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
>> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
>> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>>
>
>I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
>I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
>Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
>(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
>at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
>the same OS (XP Pro). 
>
>Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
>
>1) Sitting in front of Computer1
>Pushing to server - Good
>Pulling from server - Good
>Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>
>2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
>Desktop
>Pushing to computer1 - Good
>Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>
>3) Sitting in front of any other computer
>Pushing to server - Good
>Pulling from server - Good
>Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>
>4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
>Remote   
>     Desktop
>Pushing to computer1 - Good
>Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>
>Thank you for your quick response!!!

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
> >> >
> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
> >> >
> >> >Any takers?
> >>
> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
> >>
> >> There are two directions the data can move.
> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
> >>
> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
> >>
> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >>
> >> There are various ways to move the data.
> >> 1) Using FTP.
> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
> >>
> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
> >>
> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
> >> * Disk fragmentation.
> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
> >> of?
> >>
> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
> >>
> >
> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
> >
> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
> >
> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
> >Pushing to server - Good
> >Pulling from server - Good
> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >
> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
> >Desktop
> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >
> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
> >Pushing to server - Good
> >Pulling from server - Good
> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >
> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
> >Remote   
> >     Desktop
> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >
> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
>
> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
> involved, and different products, different factors.
>
> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>
> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
>
> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
> Explorer.
>
> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
> software, network use?
>
> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>
>
>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
>> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
>> >> >
>> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
>> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
>> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
>> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
>> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
>> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
>> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
>> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any takers?
>> >>
>> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
>> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
>> >>
>> >> There are two directions the data can move.
>> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
>> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
>> >>
>> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
>> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
>> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
>> >>
>> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
>> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >>
>> >> There are various ways to move the data.
>> >> 1) Using FTP.
>> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
>> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
>> >>
>> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
>> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
>> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
>> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
>> >>
>> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
>> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
>> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
>> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
>> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
>> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
>> >> * Disk fragmentation.
>> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
>> >> of?
>> >>
>> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
>> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
>> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
>> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
>> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
>> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
>> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
>> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
>> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
>> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
>> >
>> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
>> >
>> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
>> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >
>> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
>> >Desktop
>> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >
>> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
>> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >
>> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
>> >Remote   
>> >     Desktop
>> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >
>> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
>>
>> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
>> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
>> involved, and different products, different factors.
>>
>> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
>> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
>> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>>
>> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
>> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
>> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
>>
>> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
>> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
>> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
>> Explorer.
>>
>> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
>> software, network use?
>>
>> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
>> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?

>Well, I had already checked the resources a couple days ago and nothing is
>being overloaded. Network, CPU, and RAM are all good to go. As for software,
>I'm certain it's a software issue. I haven't checked the fragmentation, and I
>guess I'm not sure how that would affect pulling from the computer with the
>server, since pulling with other computers yields a good transfer rate, but I
>will definately check that when I get back to the office on Monday.
>Personally, I'm convinced that it's a software issue, but I have no idea
>where to start diagnosing networking software.

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:40:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
> >> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
> >> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
> >> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
> >> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
> >> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
> >> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
> >> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
> >> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any takers?
> >> >>
> >> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
> >> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are two directions the data can move.
> >> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
> >> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
> >> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
> >> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
> >> >>
> >> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
> >> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are various ways to move the data.
> >> >> 1) Using FTP.
> >> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
> >> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
> >> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
> >> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
> >> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
> >> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
> >> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
> >> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
> >> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
> >> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
> >> >> * Disk fragmentation.
> >> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
> >> >> of?
> >> >>
> >> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
> >> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> >> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> >> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
> >> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
> >> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
> >> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
> >> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
> >> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
> >> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
> >> >
> >> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
> >> >
> >> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
> >> >Pushing to server - Good
> >> >Pulling from server - Good
> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >
> >> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
> >> >Desktop
> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >
> >> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
> >> >Pushing to server - Good
> >> >Pulling from server - Good
> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >
> >> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
> >> >Remote   
> >> >     Desktop
> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >
> >> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
> >>
> >> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
> >> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
> >> involved, and different products, different factors.
> >>
> >> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
> >> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
> >> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
> >> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
> >>
> >> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
> >> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
> >> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
> >>
> >> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
> >> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
> >> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
> >> Explorer.
> >>
> >> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
> >> software, network use?
> >>
> >> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
> >> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?
>
> >Well, I had already checked the resources a couple days ago and nothing is
> >being overloaded. Network, CPU, and RAM are all good to go. As for software,
> >I'm certain it's a software issue. I haven't checked the fragmentation, and I
> >guess I'm not sure how that would affect pulling from the computer with the
> >server, since pulling with other computers yields a good transfer rate, but I
> >will definately check that when I get back to the office on Monday.
> >Personally, I'm convinced that it's a software issue, but I have no idea
> >where to start diagnosing networking software.
>
> You start by finding the bottleneck.  Any time you transfer a file, and the file
> transfer takes more than 0 seconds, then there is some resource somewhere that
> is being exhausted, and slowing the file transfer down.  So, you find the
> resource that's being exhausted.  That resource will show at 100% utilisation
> while the file transfer is going.
>
> And that's the value of Process Explorer.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html
>
> But, you never told us - is Computer1 identical to the others?  Hardware,
> software, usage pattern?  This is highly relevant.  If there's anything about
> Computer1, that makes it less powerful or more burdened than the others, now
> would be a good time to discuss it.  How homogenous is your LAN?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>
>
>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:40:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
>> >> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
>> >> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
>> >> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
>> >> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
>> >> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
>> >> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
>> >> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
>> >> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Any takers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
>> >> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are two directions the data can move.
>> >> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
>> >> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
>> >> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
>> >> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
>> >> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are various ways to move the data.
>> >> >> 1) Using FTP.
>> >> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
>> >> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
>> >> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
>> >> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
>> >> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
>> >> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
>> >> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
>> >> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
>> >> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
>> >> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
>> >> >> * Disk fragmentation.
>> >> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
>> >> >> of?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
>> >> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
>> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
>> >> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
>> >> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>> >> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
>> >> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
>> >> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
>> >> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
>> >> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
>> >> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
>> >> >
>> >> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
>> >> >
>> >> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
>> >> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >
>> >> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
>> >> >Desktop
>> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >
>> >> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
>> >> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >
>> >> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
>> >> >Remote   
>> >> >     Desktop
>> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
>> >>
>> >> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
>> >> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
>> >> involved, and different products, different factors.
>> >>
>> >> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
>> >> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
>> >> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>> >> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>> >>
>> >> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
>> >> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
>> >> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
>> >>
>> >> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
>> >> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
>> >> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
>> >> Explorer.
>> >>
>> >> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
>> >> software, network use?
>> >>
>> >> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
>> >> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?
>>
>> >Well, I had already checked the resources a couple days ago and nothing is
>> >being overloaded. Network, CPU, and RAM are all good to go. As for software,
>> >I'm certain it's a software issue. I haven't checked the fragmentation, and I
>> >guess I'm not sure how that would affect pulling from the computer with the
>> >server, since pulling with other computers yields a good transfer rate, but I
>> >will definately check that when I get back to the office on Monday.
>> >Personally, I'm convinced that it's a software issue, but I have no idea
>> >where to start diagnosing networking software.
>>
>> You start by finding the bottleneck.  Any time you transfer a file, and the file
>> transfer takes more than 0 seconds, then there is some resource somewhere that
>> is being exhausted, and slowing the file transfer down.  So, you find the
>> resource that's being exhausted.  That resource will show at 100% utilisation
>> while the file transfer is going.
>>
>> And that's the value of Process Explorer.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html
>>
>> But, you never told us - is Computer1 identical to the others?  Hardware,
>> software, usage pattern?  This is highly relevant.  If there's anything about
>> Computer1, that makes it less powerful or more burdened than the others, now
>> would be a good time to discuss it.  How homogenous is your LAN?

>I did actually mention a couple replies ago that none of the computers on
>the network are the same. There are two PC's, one running XP Pro, the other
>Win 2000, and there are two laptops. As for resources, I don't know the
>hardware setup for the separate comptuers, since I never use them. But
>Computer1 (which is the computer I use) does have plenty of resources. My
>boss mentioned that he's ordered some spare network cards, so we will try
>swapping out the NIC as soon as those come in, but before then I will
>definately look into the resources again. I'll let you know what I find.

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:49:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:40:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
> >> >> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
> >> >> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
> >> >> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
> >> >> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
> >> >> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
> >> >> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
> >> >> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
> >> >> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Any takers?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
> >> >> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are two directions the data can move.
> >> >> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
> >> >> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
> >> >> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
> >> >> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
> >> >> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> >> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >> >> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
> >> >> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are various ways to move the data.
> >> >> >> 1) Using FTP.
> >> >> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
> >> >> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
> >> >> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
> >> >> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
> >> >> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
> >> >> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
> >> >> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
> >> >> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
> >> >> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
> >> >> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
> >> >> >> * Disk fragmentation.
> >> >> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
> >> >> >> of?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
> >> >> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> >> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> >> >> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> >> >> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
> >> >> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
> >> >> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
> >> >> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
> >> >> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
> >> >> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
> >> >> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
> >> >> >Pushing to server - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from server - Good
> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >
> >> >> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
> >> >> >Desktop
> >> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >
> >> >> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
> >> >> >Pushing to server - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from server - Good
> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >
> >> >> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
> >> >> >Remote   
> >> >> >     Desktop
> >> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
> >> >> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
> >> >> involved, and different products, different factors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
> >> >> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
> >> >> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
> >> >> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
> >> >>
> >> >> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
> >> >> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
> >> >> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
> >> >> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
> >> >> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
> >> >> Explorer.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
> >> >> software, network use?
> >> >>
> >> >> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
> >> >> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?
> >>
> >> >Well, I had already checked the resources a couple days ago and nothing is
> >> >being overloaded. Network, CPU, and RAM are all good to go. As for software,
> >> >I'm certain it's a software issue. I haven't checked the fragmentation, and I
> >> >guess I'm not sure how that would affect pulling from the computer with the
> >> >server, since pulling with other computers yields a good transfer rate, but I
> >> >will definately check that when I get back to the office on Monday.
> >> >Personally, I'm convinced that it's a software issue, but I have no idea
> >> >where to start diagnosing networking software.
> >>
> >> You start by finding the bottleneck.  Any time you transfer a file, and the file
> >> transfer takes more than 0 seconds, then there is some resource somewhere that
> >> is being exhausted, and slowing the file transfer down.  So, you find the
> >> resource that's being exhausted.  That resource will show at 100% utilisation
> >> while the file transfer is going.
> >>
> >> And that's the value of Process Explorer.
> >> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html
> >>
> >> But, you never told us - is Computer1 identical to the others?  Hardware,
> >> software, usage pattern?  This is highly relevant.  If there's anything about
> >> Computer1, that makes it less powerful or more burdened than the others, now
> >> would be a good time to discuss it.  How homogenous is your LAN?
>
> >I did actually mention a couple replies ago that none of the computers on
> >the network are the same. There are two PC's, one running XP Pro, the other
> >Win 2000, and there are two laptops. As for resources, I don't know the
> >hardware setup for the separate comptuers, since I never use them. But
> >Computer1 (which is the computer I use) does have plenty of resources. My
> >boss mentioned that he's ordered some spare network cards, so we will try
> >swapping out the NIC as soon as those come in, but before then I will
> >definately look into the resources again. I'll let you know what I find.
>
> OK, well if I missed a detail which you provided, I apologise.  But what you
> have to do is find the bottleneck.  There is one, somewhere.
>
> I presume that, when you test Computer1 vs Computer2, you are moving the same
> file(s) in each test?  And you're using the same procedure / utility to move the
> file(s) in each test?
>
> If Process Explorer, which shows just 3 metrics - CPU utilisation, memory
> utilisation, and I/O, isn't detailed enough, you have (Control Panel -
> Administrative Tools - ) Performance.  Performance Monitor, aka System Monitor,
> offers dozens of metrics that you can watch, on any NT based computer.  If any
> resource doesn't reach 100% utilisation, then it's not the (only) problem.  Look
> at all metrics, until you find the problem.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>
>
>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:49:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:40:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:15:02 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0800, jayyork7 <jayyo***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
>> >> >> >> >(Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
>> >> >> >> >computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
>> >> >> >> >copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
>> >> >> >> >the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
>> >> >> >> >fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
>> >> >> >> >computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
>> >> >> >> >computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
>> >> >> >> >logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Any takers?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Slow file transfers are a lot of fun to diagnose.  Your description of the
>> >> >> >> problem is a bit hard to follow though.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There are two directions the data can move.
>> >> >> >> 1) From Computer1 to the Server.
>> >> >> >> 2) From the Server to Computer1.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There are two ways to run the transfer.
>> >> >> >> 1) While sitting in front of Computer1.
>> >> >> >> 2) While sitting in front of the Server.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This gives you 4 tests to run.
>> >> >> >> 1) Pushing to Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> >> >> 2) Pushing to the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >> >> >> 3) Pulling from Computer1, sitting at the Server.
>> >> >> >> 4) Pulling from the Server, sitting at Computer1.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There are various ways to move the data.
>> >> >> >> 1) Using FTP.
>> >> >> >> 2) Using drag and drop (Windows Explorer).
>> >> >> >> 3) Using the Copy or XCopy commands from a command window.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm betting that you're using Windows Explorer.  I think that you've discussed
>> >> >> >> moving the data in both directions.  I'm not  what "logged onto" means though.
>> >> >> >> Do you mean which computer you're sitting in front of, running the desktop of?
>> >> >> >> Or connected to,thru the network?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Now, if the slow transfer ONLY affects Computer1, then it's a good bet that the
>> >> >> >> problem originates with something about Computer1.  But there are a boatload of
>> >> >> >> possible factors, and any of them can have an asymmetrical effect.
>> >> >> >> * Network connection.  Network cabling, router / switch port, network card.
>> >> >> >> * Hardware.  CPU, disk.
>> >> >> >> * Software.  What's running on it, that you know of? 
>> >> >> >> * Disk fragmentation.
>> >> >> >> * Security, and network use.  What could be running on it, that you don't know
>> >> >> >> of?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How similar is Computer1 to all other computers that you've tested this problem
>> >> >> >> on, and to your network environment as a whole, given the above factors?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
>> >> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
>> >> >> >> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
>> >> >> >> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>> >> >> >>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I'll do my best to map out the situation a bit more for you. First of all,
>> >> >> >I'm not physically sitting at the server, I'm logged onto it through Remote
>> >> >> >Desktop Connection, since there's no monitor connected to the server. But
>> >> >> >(please correct me if I'm wrong) that should be exactly the same as sitting
>> >> >> >at the server. None of the computers are the same, although some of them run
>> >> >> >the same OS (XP Pro). 
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Here are the transfer patterns(all using explorer):
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >1) Sitting in front of Computer1
>> >> >> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >2) Sitting in front of Computer1, but logged onto server through Remote
>> >> >> >Desktop
>> >> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >3) Sitting in front of any other computer
>> >> >> >Pushing to server - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from server - Good
>> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >4) Sitting in front of any other computer, but logged onto server through
>> >> >> >Remote   
>> >> >> >     Desktop
>> >> >> >Pushing to computer1 - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from computer1 - BAD!!!
>> >> >> >Pushing to any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >Pulling from any other network computer - Good
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Thank you for your quick response!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kewl.  RDC is another factor that I considered briefly, that will make this even
>> >> >> more fun.  Any remote control or remote desktop imposes load upon the computers
>> >> >> involved, and different products, different factors.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Very nice canonical problem analysis, above.  We see two problem test cases,
>> >> >> with all other 14 test cases being no problem.
>> >> >> * Computer1 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>> >> >> * Computer2 as RDC client, to server as RDC server, pulling from Computer1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My gut feeling is that this clearly indicts "pulling from Computer1" to be the
>> >> >> common factor.  I think it exonerates RDC (both client and server processes) as
>> >> >> being involved.  And it exonerates the Server as being involved.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now is when you will need Task Manager, or maybe (preferably) Process Explorer,
>> >> >> running on Comupter1, to see which resource is being overloaded.  Both CPU,
>> >> >> disk, network card can be easily monitored under either Task Manager or Process
>> >> >> Explorer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And what is the homogeneity factor - Computer1 to Computer2?  Hardware,
>> >> >> software, network use?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any time I had any problem involving any disk related activity, I would check
>> >> >> (correct) disk fragmentation first though.  Have you done this?
>> >>
>> >> >Well, I had already checked the resources a couple days ago and nothing is
>> >> >being overloaded. Network, CPU, and RAM are all good to go. As for software,
>> >> >I'm certain it's a software issue. I haven't checked the fragmentation, and I
>> >> >guess I'm not sure how that would affect pulling from the computer with the
>> >> >server, since pulling with other computers yields a good transfer rate, but I
>> >> >will definately check that when I get back to the office on Monday.
>> >> >Personally, I'm convinced that it's a software issue, but I have no idea
>> >> >where to start diagnosing networking software.
>> >>
>> >> You start by finding the bottleneck.  Any time you transfer a file, and the file
>> >> transfer takes more than 0 seconds, then there is some resource somewhere that
>> >> is being exhausted, and slowing the file transfer down.  So, you find the
>> >> resource that's being exhausted.  That resource will show at 100% utilisation
>> >> while the file transfer is going.
>> >>
>> >> And that's the value of Process Explorer.
>> >> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
>> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html
>> >>
>> >> But, you never told us - is Computer1 identical to the others?  Hardware,
>> >> software, usage pattern?  This is highly relevant.  If there's anything about
>> >> Computer1, that makes it less powerful or more burdened than the others, now
>> >> would be a good time to discuss it.  How homogenous is your LAN?
>>
>> >I did actually mention a couple replies ago that none of the computers on
>> >the network are the same. There are two PC's, one running XP Pro, the other
>> >Win 2000, and there are two laptops. As for resources, I don't know the
>> >hardware setup for the separate comptuers, since I never use them. But
>> >Computer1 (which is the computer I use) does have plenty of resources. My
>> >boss mentioned that he's ordered some spare network cards, so we will try
>> >swapping out the NIC as soon as those come in, but before then I will
>> >definately look into the resources again. I'll let you know what I find.
>>
>> OK, well if I missed a detail which you provided, I apologise.  But what you
>> have to do is find the bottleneck.  There is one, somewhere.
>>
>> I presume that, when you test Computer1 vs Computer2, you are moving the same
>> file(s) in each test?  And you're using the same procedure / utility to move the
>> file(s) in each test?
>>
>> If Process Explorer, which shows just 3 metrics - CPU utilisation, memory
>> utilisation, and I/O, isn't detailed enough, you have (Control Panel -
>> Administrative Tools - ) Performance.  Performance Monitor, aka System Monitor,
>> offers dozens of metrics that you can watch, on any NT based computer.  If any
>> resource doesn't reach 100% utilisation, then it's not the (only) problem.  Look
>> at all metrics, until you find the problem.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
>> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
>> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>>
>
>Yes, all the same files are being moved with the same utilities.
>
>Interestingly enough...the RAM appeared to be the bottleneck, which
>shouldn't slow anything down since the server has 1 GB and Computer1 has 1.25
>GB. I used System Monitor to look at the resources. I noticed that, when on
>the server pulling from Computer1, the RAM usage on the server will peak at
>100% and then fall down to 0%, and it will continue doing that over and over
>until the copy is done. When using the server to pull from any other
>computer, the RAM on the server peaks at 100% and then remains peaked until
>the copy is done.

"jayyork7" wrote:

> I am currently connected to a small business network that has one server
> (Server 2003) and four other computers (2000 and XP Pro).
>
> When I am logged onto the server, I can transfer files to and from every
> computer just fine except for one (which I'll call computer1).  When I try to
> copy files from computer1 to the server, while still logged onto the server,
> the files copy very slowly, but I can copy from the server to computer1 just
> fine. Funny thing is that when I'm logged onto computer1, or any other
> computer on the network, I can copy files to/from the server and every other
> computer without a problem. The only slow file transfer occurs when I am
> logged onto the server and copying from computer1 to the server.
>
> Any takers?
>
>