Slow NAS file copy - Win 7 vs XP

I have data from an accounting program that I back up from 1 QNAP NAS to a Buffalo NAS every day. The files total 167MB.

If I use a Windows XP computer on the network (24 port Gigabit switch ) all computer have Gigabit, the copying will be finished in about 2 minutes.

If I use Windows XP mode on a Win 7 machine the same copy takes about the same time.

If I use Win 7, it will take about 2 - 3 mins to calculate the copy and then about 2 mins to do the copy.

Is there some way to make Win 7 behave the same way as Win XP and do the copying without the calculating.

If this topic has already been covered, can some kind soul please direct me to the correct thread.

I like Windows 7 in all respects, but it seems to be very slow in network file copying compared to XP or other previous versions of Windows.

I have this issue as well. My win7 machines take an extremely long time to copy files over the network compared to our XP machines. It seems that it takes almost as long to calculate the the copy as it does to actually perform the copy.

From what I read about this problem at Technet, it can help to turn off remote differential compression and also disable TCP auto tuning and disable recieve side scaling. Hope it helps.

To disable Remote Differential Compression,
1. Click Start – Control Panel – Programs – Trun Windows features on or off

2. Uncheck “Remote Differential Compression” and click OK.
3. Restart the computer and you should see an improved performance with copying files.





How to Disable TCP AutoTuning and Receive Side Scaling

1. Open an elevated command prompt with administrator rights.
2. Type the following commands and press Enter (the second command on RSS is optional):

netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
netsh interface tcp set global rss=disabled

3. Reboot computer.

Source: Why is Windows 7 still as slow as Vista with File Copy??

Hi,

I have turned off the remote differential compression. No help. I will try the second suggestion and report back.

The problem appears to be the calculating to copy . not the actual copy .which seems to be as fast as XP is.,

Thanks for the feedback