Slow network response

[Tony]

I don't know why I am doing this with beautiful Saturday weather outside, but anyway...

In Windows Explorer, if I try to navigate to another PC on the network by going through My Network Places / Entire Network / Microsoft Windows Network, once I click on Microsoft Windows Network, it takes a looong time to display the network name and then to display the machines on the network. Is this normal, or is there something I can do to speed things up?

Athlon 2.4, 512mb RAM, 10/100 network, XP Home with SP2, fixed IP addresses.

Related question - when I'm going through the above, Explorer also shows "Microsoft Terminal Services" and "Web Client Network", neither of which I have. Can/should I remove these somehow?

[Speedy Gonzales]

Put my network places on the desktop. That way, u wont have to go thru My computer to get there. It might be a bit faster.

You'll just have to click on My network places, and you'll have the network.

[Jen]

Why not just map the network drive? In XP Windows Explorer go Tools > Map Network Drive. Select a drive letter eg Z, then enter in the computer name or IP and the shared directory or drive. Really fast way of accessing a networked machine.

Eg: \\192.168.1.6\shares

[Tony]

Good question, Jen.
The reason is that in fact the issue is surrounding a new version of NovaBackup (7.2) where I am having problems getting the software to backup up across the network. If I use UNC naming it is very erratic (as in it seems to make Novabackup hang), if I use mapping it is OK, but I can't guarantee that the mapped drive letter is going to be the same every time NovaBackup runs (or can I?), and if I use mapping, I have to exactly specify the drive letter to Novabackup. Novastor recommend using UNC naming rather than mapping.

It was while trying to sort this out I found this slow response, and clutching at straws, was wondering if there was a connection. Next step is to contact Novastor support, but I am trying to do as much as I can before I call them.

[Tony]

Put my network places on the desktop.

Just tried that, didn't make any difference. :(

[Graham L]

I have a vague memory that it's a bit slow to build up the network map because the other clients don't broadcast their presence very often.

I wonder if a batch file which pinged (a good TCP/IP function) each other host would cause the My Network map (which is a rotten old Windows function) to be refreshed quickly. ;)

[Tony]

Veeery interesting...

Ping didn't seem to make any difference.

After Speedy's suggestion, I put my network places on the desktop.

Double-click My Network Places icon - instant response to display new window with Entire network etc in it.

Double-click Entire Network, 13-15 secs to respond with new window containing network name.

Double-click network name, 23-26 secs to respond with window showing the 2 machines on the network.

Double click network PC name - instant response.

These times seem to be consistent and repeatable.

I'll plug in the laptop and see if that makes any difference to the tinings.

[Speedy Gonzales]

If u have XP on all PC's there, use Add A Network Place and point directly to the other PC on the network (its shared folder).

That way, u wont have to click on my network places, then my entire network. You'll go straight to the shared folder. When u double click on my network places.

[Tony]

If u have XP on all PC's there, use Add A Network Place and point directly to the other PC on the network (its shared folder).
Did that, worked a treat, and Novabackup seems to like it too. Gracias, Speedy. :thumbs:

However there is still the original issue of why it all takes so long. I've just discovered that this happens only on this PC. The other two machines (PC running XP Home and laptop with Win98SE) both find everything instantaneously. So what might be different on this PC? This is the "main" PC used for internet access etc, but is also a much more grunty machine than the other two.

[Speedy Gonzales]

No problem Tony :)

Any firewalls enabled / installed Tony??

Zonealarm? Nortons Internet Security XP Sp2's??

[Tony]

XP firewall is enabled, Spybot, AdAware, AVG, Wingate internet connection sharing. Disabling all of these makes no difference.:badpc:

[Speedy Gonzales]

However there is still the original issue of why it all takes so long. I've just discovered that this happens only on this PC. The other two machines (PC running XP Home and laptop with Win98SE) both find everything instantaneously. So what might be different on this PC? This is the "main" PC used for internet access etc, but is also a much more grunty machine than the other two.

Ah when u say it happens only on this PC. You mean the XP Home and 98 SE PC take longer to access the main PC's shared folder?? Or the main PC takes longer to access either the XP Home or the 98 SE PC's shared folder?

Under Windows firewall on the main PC, file and printer sharing is ticked isnt it (under exceptions)?? You're using a hub arent you?? Try moving the connections around. See if that speeds things up.

[Tony]

Ah when u say it happens only on this PC. You mean the XP Home and 98 SE PC take longer to access the main PC's shared folder?? Or the main PC takes longer to access either the XP Home or the 98 SE PC's shared folder?
No, the other way round. Access from the main PC is slow. The other two accessing the main PC are instant.

Yes, file and printer sharing is ticked under the firewall exceptions.

[Speedy Gonzales]

Has XP Home or 98 got a firewall installed then?? If the main PC is slow accessing either of these.

So, you have XP as the main PC and XP and 98 as the clients.

I take it, all 3 have access to the net as well???

[Tony]

So, you have XP as the main PC and XP and 98 as the clients.

I take it, all 3 have access to the net as well???

Both XP Home PCs have the XP firewall. File and printer sharing is ticked as an exception on both. The Win98Se laptop has no firewall. Yes, all three have internet access, via Wingate ICS on the main machine.

[Speedy Gonzales]

The only other thing I can think of is, it needs a defrag maybe??

I've run out of ideas!

[linw]

Have a look at this site. It has a lot of excellent networking material. The page pointed to discusses netbios and computer browsing. http://www.practicallynetworked.com/qa/qa20030529.shtml

I have netbios enabled over TCP/IP for all machines and only have one machine with the Computer Browser enabled (automatic). The other machines have the Computer Browser set off.

Check differences in settings between machines. DNS settings? WINS settings?

Can you instantly ping another computer using its computer name? (tests name resolution).

Good luck.

[Tony]

I enabled NetBios over TCPIP and BINGO - the problem solved itself! Thanks Linw.

Question - Why would this make a difference? On the other XP machine the NetBios setting is set to "default". On the win98 machine NetBios is not installed as far as I can tell.

[Tony]

Hi everyone,

Quick update - I spoke too soon about enabling NETBIOS - it actually didn't make any difference in the long run.

However - I think I really do have it solved now. I have an IHUG ULTRA connection, and checking out the properties of the receiver card, I saw I had assigned it a fixed IP address - like the rest of the network (why? can't remember, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time!) Anyway, I changed it to "get an IP address automatically" and everything sorted itself out - instant response etc.

So what was happening? I'm guessing that because I had the ultra card on the same subnet as the other PCS, I was scanning the whole of the internet when I was trying to see my own network - could that be it? You will all realize by now that my networking knowledge is minimal, so any contributions will be gratefully received.

[gibler]

Sounds to me that you probably has the subnet mask wrong on the ultra card...

[Agent_24]

I had that problem after I installed the IPX protocol for testing something. Uninstalling it fixed the problem.

[Tony]

Gibler, explain why? I've never been very clear on this whole subnet mask thing. The general IP addresses are 192.168.0.x with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. What should I have had on the ultra card, (which had IP address 192.168.0.10) and do I need to bother anyway now that it seems to be working with DHCP? And would there be any advantage in giving it a fixed IP address?

I was actually about to edit my previous post. I am now thinking what was actually happening was that when I was trying to poll the network, it was polling the ULTRA card as it was identified as part of the network with that IP address, and retrying for ages until it gave up. How does that sound as a throry?

[gibler]

You want to use the same netmask on both (well that's how it works with my adsl router). It just sets the range of ip addresses to talk to, in your case basically they will all begin with 192.168.0.

DHCP should provide the correct value i.e. 255.255.255.0 and also gateway and dns ip addresses to use.

DHCP saves people making "mistakes" (unless you are the one running the DHCP server) - it also avoids ip address conflicts (same ip address used). Then again if your DHCP server goes down you might be unable to renew an ip address. Also on large networks you can have problems with unauthorised DHCP servers being switch on :D

Static IP Addresses also mean you know that your IP address won't ever change (with DHCP it depends on how the server is configured).

[Tony]

Thanks Gibler - I understand a bit better now (I think).
After a conversation with an IHUG help desk guy (filling in time while waiting to reboot), he said the IP address on the Ultra card should be 10.10.10.1/255.255.255.0.