Server 2003 slow shareNetwork Speed Discrepency?Network Transfer Rate on SMB/FTPSlow ethernet data transfer...
Theorems that impeded progress
Why do falling prices hurt debtors?
Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
Test whether all array elements are factors of a number
tikz: show 0 at the axis origin
Is a tag line useful on a cover?
Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?
Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
Which models of the Boeing 737 are still in production?
Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Show that if two triangles built on parallel lines, with equal bases have the same perimeter only if they are congruent.
Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?
How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?
Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus
Problem of parity - Can we draw a closed path made up of 20 line segments...
Python: next in for loop
Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?
Minkowski space
can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?
Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing
Server 2003 slow share
Network Speed Discrepency?Network Transfer Rate on SMB/FTPSlow ethernet data transfer in Windows Server 2008 R2Transfer between internal disks slows down for large filesIs slow IO on my cloud server causing my slow server restart issues?Debugging slow transfer rate from serverDebugging slow transfer rate from serverWindows Server 2003 Outbound ftp Very Slow with Windows Firewall enabledslow single connection between two otherwise fast machinesWhat do I scale up on a virtual server to take load off the CPU while uploading big files?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I am running an 03 box with shares active. When uploading to the share, the speed is average. About 15-20 mbps.. This server is connected directly to 2 other machines accessing the server. When uploading to another server the connection speed is twice that of the direct storage. When uploading s massive folder, 250 GB, the upload will start as normal, but as it progresses it drops in speed. Now it is sitting at around 2-7 Mbps. Any ideas on howIi can boost the transfer rate? On a side note, the download speed is great. It is a speed that you would expect from this setup, the main problem is uploading and what is causing the extreme slowness in speeds. Any help would be great.
windows-server-2003 performance share
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 10 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
I am running an 03 box with shares active. When uploading to the share, the speed is average. About 15-20 mbps.. This server is connected directly to 2 other machines accessing the server. When uploading to another server the connection speed is twice that of the direct storage. When uploading s massive folder, 250 GB, the upload will start as normal, but as it progresses it drops in speed. Now it is sitting at around 2-7 Mbps. Any ideas on howIi can boost the transfer rate? On a side note, the download speed is great. It is a speed that you would expect from this setup, the main problem is uploading and what is causing the extreme slowness in speeds. Any help would be great.
windows-server-2003 performance share
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 10 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20
add a comment |
I am running an 03 box with shares active. When uploading to the share, the speed is average. About 15-20 mbps.. This server is connected directly to 2 other machines accessing the server. When uploading to another server the connection speed is twice that of the direct storage. When uploading s massive folder, 250 GB, the upload will start as normal, but as it progresses it drops in speed. Now it is sitting at around 2-7 Mbps. Any ideas on howIi can boost the transfer rate? On a side note, the download speed is great. It is a speed that you would expect from this setup, the main problem is uploading and what is causing the extreme slowness in speeds. Any help would be great.
windows-server-2003 performance share
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
I am running an 03 box with shares active. When uploading to the share, the speed is average. About 15-20 mbps.. This server is connected directly to 2 other machines accessing the server. When uploading to another server the connection speed is twice that of the direct storage. When uploading s massive folder, 250 GB, the upload will start as normal, but as it progresses it drops in speed. Now it is sitting at around 2-7 Mbps. Any ideas on howIi can boost the transfer rate? On a side note, the download speed is great. It is a speed that you would expect from this setup, the main problem is uploading and what is causing the extreme slowness in speeds. Any help would be great.
windows-server-2003 performance share
windows-server-2003 performance share
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
edited Dec 23 '10 at 8:01
G V
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
asked Dec 23 '10 at 5:51
G VG V
11
11
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 10 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 10 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20
add a comment |
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It depends on your hardware and the file structures you are copying. Copying one big file will generally be faster than copying many small files. When you are copying directory structures with thousands of files over a network connection on a file by file basis the transfer rate will always be a lot slower than a single large file copy.
However with very large files Windows 2003 can find itself in a situation that catastrophically affects both transfer rate and overall performance on the server. Windows 2003 buffers incoming network file copies to RAM and flushes them disk in the background as fast as it can. If your network connection is faster than your disk subsystem can keep up with this can lead to extreme amounts of RAM being consumed to store the buffered data. It's not hard for this to happen with Gigabit ethernet if you have only one disk or a small number of disks with RAID 5 behind the volume you are copying to. If your files are small this isn't too damaging as the copy simply slows down as each file gets written out before the next one can be started (for the most part) but if you are copying really large files under these conditions then the server will start to page out everything it can which will lead to severe performance problems if the files you are copying are significantly larger than the amount of free memory you started with.
Other activity on the server will impact this too - if the server receiving the copy is carrying out any other IO at the same time then this will cause the problem to occur much more rapidly. Your comment that the network copy is initially faster than local copies to direct attached storage strongly indicates to me that this is part of not all of your problem.
This behaviour has been fixed with Windows 2008 but the changes weren't universally welcomed as they appeared to slow down many copies that never triggered the worst case behaviour.
If this is the case then faster disks will help - if the disks can keep ahead of the network transfer rate then the problem wont happen. Moving to Windows 2008 should help but you may see slower initial copy speeds but better overall average transfer rates when dealing with large files in particular.
This article by Mark Russinovich about the changes in Windows Vista's copy behavior discusses the Windows 2003 issue if you want to really get to the root of it.
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f215574%2fserver-2003-slow-share%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It depends on your hardware and the file structures you are copying. Copying one big file will generally be faster than copying many small files. When you are copying directory structures with thousands of files over a network connection on a file by file basis the transfer rate will always be a lot slower than a single large file copy.
However with very large files Windows 2003 can find itself in a situation that catastrophically affects both transfer rate and overall performance on the server. Windows 2003 buffers incoming network file copies to RAM and flushes them disk in the background as fast as it can. If your network connection is faster than your disk subsystem can keep up with this can lead to extreme amounts of RAM being consumed to store the buffered data. It's not hard for this to happen with Gigabit ethernet if you have only one disk or a small number of disks with RAID 5 behind the volume you are copying to. If your files are small this isn't too damaging as the copy simply slows down as each file gets written out before the next one can be started (for the most part) but if you are copying really large files under these conditions then the server will start to page out everything it can which will lead to severe performance problems if the files you are copying are significantly larger than the amount of free memory you started with.
Other activity on the server will impact this too - if the server receiving the copy is carrying out any other IO at the same time then this will cause the problem to occur much more rapidly. Your comment that the network copy is initially faster than local copies to direct attached storage strongly indicates to me that this is part of not all of your problem.
This behaviour has been fixed with Windows 2008 but the changes weren't universally welcomed as they appeared to slow down many copies that never triggered the worst case behaviour.
If this is the case then faster disks will help - if the disks can keep ahead of the network transfer rate then the problem wont happen. Moving to Windows 2008 should help but you may see slower initial copy speeds but better overall average transfer rates when dealing with large files in particular.
This article by Mark Russinovich about the changes in Windows Vista's copy behavior discusses the Windows 2003 issue if you want to really get to the root of it.
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
add a comment |
It depends on your hardware and the file structures you are copying. Copying one big file will generally be faster than copying many small files. When you are copying directory structures with thousands of files over a network connection on a file by file basis the transfer rate will always be a lot slower than a single large file copy.
However with very large files Windows 2003 can find itself in a situation that catastrophically affects both transfer rate and overall performance on the server. Windows 2003 buffers incoming network file copies to RAM and flushes them disk in the background as fast as it can. If your network connection is faster than your disk subsystem can keep up with this can lead to extreme amounts of RAM being consumed to store the buffered data. It's not hard for this to happen with Gigabit ethernet if you have only one disk or a small number of disks with RAID 5 behind the volume you are copying to. If your files are small this isn't too damaging as the copy simply slows down as each file gets written out before the next one can be started (for the most part) but if you are copying really large files under these conditions then the server will start to page out everything it can which will lead to severe performance problems if the files you are copying are significantly larger than the amount of free memory you started with.
Other activity on the server will impact this too - if the server receiving the copy is carrying out any other IO at the same time then this will cause the problem to occur much more rapidly. Your comment that the network copy is initially faster than local copies to direct attached storage strongly indicates to me that this is part of not all of your problem.
This behaviour has been fixed with Windows 2008 but the changes weren't universally welcomed as they appeared to slow down many copies that never triggered the worst case behaviour.
If this is the case then faster disks will help - if the disks can keep ahead of the network transfer rate then the problem wont happen. Moving to Windows 2008 should help but you may see slower initial copy speeds but better overall average transfer rates when dealing with large files in particular.
This article by Mark Russinovich about the changes in Windows Vista's copy behavior discusses the Windows 2003 issue if you want to really get to the root of it.
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
add a comment |
It depends on your hardware and the file structures you are copying. Copying one big file will generally be faster than copying many small files. When you are copying directory structures with thousands of files over a network connection on a file by file basis the transfer rate will always be a lot slower than a single large file copy.
However with very large files Windows 2003 can find itself in a situation that catastrophically affects both transfer rate and overall performance on the server. Windows 2003 buffers incoming network file copies to RAM and flushes them disk in the background as fast as it can. If your network connection is faster than your disk subsystem can keep up with this can lead to extreme amounts of RAM being consumed to store the buffered data. It's not hard for this to happen with Gigabit ethernet if you have only one disk or a small number of disks with RAID 5 behind the volume you are copying to. If your files are small this isn't too damaging as the copy simply slows down as each file gets written out before the next one can be started (for the most part) but if you are copying really large files under these conditions then the server will start to page out everything it can which will lead to severe performance problems if the files you are copying are significantly larger than the amount of free memory you started with.
Other activity on the server will impact this too - if the server receiving the copy is carrying out any other IO at the same time then this will cause the problem to occur much more rapidly. Your comment that the network copy is initially faster than local copies to direct attached storage strongly indicates to me that this is part of not all of your problem.
This behaviour has been fixed with Windows 2008 but the changes weren't universally welcomed as they appeared to slow down many copies that never triggered the worst case behaviour.
If this is the case then faster disks will help - if the disks can keep ahead of the network transfer rate then the problem wont happen. Moving to Windows 2008 should help but you may see slower initial copy speeds but better overall average transfer rates when dealing with large files in particular.
This article by Mark Russinovich about the changes in Windows Vista's copy behavior discusses the Windows 2003 issue if you want to really get to the root of it.
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
It depends on your hardware and the file structures you are copying. Copying one big file will generally be faster than copying many small files. When you are copying directory structures with thousands of files over a network connection on a file by file basis the transfer rate will always be a lot slower than a single large file copy.
However with very large files Windows 2003 can find itself in a situation that catastrophically affects both transfer rate and overall performance on the server. Windows 2003 buffers incoming network file copies to RAM and flushes them disk in the background as fast as it can. If your network connection is faster than your disk subsystem can keep up with this can lead to extreme amounts of RAM being consumed to store the buffered data. It's not hard for this to happen with Gigabit ethernet if you have only one disk or a small number of disks with RAID 5 behind the volume you are copying to. If your files are small this isn't too damaging as the copy simply slows down as each file gets written out before the next one can be started (for the most part) but if you are copying really large files under these conditions then the server will start to page out everything it can which will lead to severe performance problems if the files you are copying are significantly larger than the amount of free memory you started with.
Other activity on the server will impact this too - if the server receiving the copy is carrying out any other IO at the same time then this will cause the problem to occur much more rapidly. Your comment that the network copy is initially faster than local copies to direct attached storage strongly indicates to me that this is part of not all of your problem.
This behaviour has been fixed with Windows 2008 but the changes weren't universally welcomed as they appeared to slow down many copies that never triggered the worst case behaviour.
If this is the case then faster disks will help - if the disks can keep ahead of the network transfer rate then the problem wont happen. Moving to Windows 2008 should help but you may see slower initial copy speeds but better overall average transfer rates when dealing with large files in particular.
This article by Mark Russinovich about the changes in Windows Vista's copy behavior discusses the Windows 2003 issue if you want to really get to the root of it.
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
answered Dec 23 '10 at 8:47
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33150
16.7k33150
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f215574%2fserver-2003-slow-share%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Can you tell us more about the hardware on the server?
– Luis Ventura
Dec 23 '10 at 8:20