Slow File Transfer Over Network

[Darcyn]

Hi i have bought a notebook with vista 32 bit home basic and didnt like vista so i upgraded it to windows 7 64bit after 1 day usage. Generally i found new os fine but i have a problem with file copying from my desktop (running xp sp3). My transfer speed is only 1.5 mbyte per second. Notebook has atheros 5007eg (54mbit) wireless lan and desktop has realtek gigabit lan. And my router is airties rt-205 with 125mbit wireless signal.
I have done the following things but it's still same.

*netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disable.
*Turn off Remote Differential Compression.
*Disabled Remote Assistance.
*Unchecked ipv6.

Is there any other way to fix the problem?

 

[torrentg]

You can try disabling Netbios in the ip config pages for each machine. Install NetBEUI to each machine. Google it. Not difficult. Reboot each machine after.

Now test your speeds.

If the notebook is the only machine on your network that uses wireless, set the router to G standard for wireless. Not Super G, or any other fancy name. Only G. If there is an 802.11g Only Mode in the router's settings, apply that.

If there is a preamble setting in the router, set it to short.

 

[Darcyn]

I have manuel ips for each computer thats why i cant disable netbios. If i do this computers cant see each other on network. I have changed 802.101b/g option to 802.101g but it didnt work. I'll try to install netbeui may i play lan games with that protocol?

 

[torrentg]

Yeah, you can play games over your lan. That uses normal tcp/ip protocol, unaffected by choice of using Netbios or Netbeui.

It is untrue that using NetBEUI instead of Netbios on your network prevents computers from seeing each other, using static or dynamic ip addresses. You can map drives the same, see other computers the same....etc...

There are many advantages to running NetBEUI, including security and efficiency. Taken from http://practicallynetworked.com/sharing/netbeui.htm

" It is a non-routable protocol, which means that computers that are not located on the same network segment or subnet can't communicate"

NetBEUI files in .zip - http://rapidshare.com/files/283694260/Netbeui_Files.zip.html

NBF.sys - copy or extract to windows\system32\drivers.
NETNBF.inf - copy or extract to windows\inf.

Then add the protocol by going to Network and Sharing center, local area connection, properties, Install, Protocol, Add.

 

[H2SO4]

Hi i have bought a notebook with vista 32 bit home basic and didnt like vista so i upgraded it to windows 7 64bit after 1 day usage. Generally i found new os fine but i have a problem with file copying from my desktop (running xp sp3). My transfer speed is only 1.5 mbyte per second. Notebook has atheros 5007eg (54mbit) wireless lan and desktop has realtek gigabit lan. And my router is airties rt-205 with 125mbit wireless signal.
I have done the following things but it's still same.

*netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disable.
*Turn off Remote Differential Compression.
*Disabled Remote Assistance.
*Unchecked ipv6.

Is there any other way to fix the problem?

You should probably re-enable all of those, seeing as they haven't been linked to the issue.

What happens if you boot both machines to [safe mode + net] and test transfer speeds from there?

What mechanism are you using to test the file throughput? For example, is copying through the CMD prompt any faster than using Explorer?

Do you have third machine you can bring into the mix for testing purposes? In other words, test transfer speeds A<->B, B<->C, and C<->A. Is one of the three perhaps always substantially slower than the other two?

With 54mbit (802.11b) the theoretical maximum is 6.75 MBytes/sec, so it's never going to be blindingly fast, but it should be a little better than what you're seeing.

 

[H2SO4]

Yeah, you can play games over your lan. That uses normal tcp/ip protocol, unaffected by choice of using Netbios or Netbeui.

It is untrue that using NetBEUI instead of Netbios on your network prevents computers from seeing each other, using static or dynamic ip addresses. You can map drives the same, see other computers the same....etc...

There are many advantages to running NetBEUI, including security and efficiency. Taken from Should I use NetBeui?

" It is a non-routable protocol, which means that computers that are not located on the same network segment or subnet can't communicate"

NetBEUI is entirely obsolete and there's no reason whatsoever to use it on a modern network. The supposed security benefits you mentioned do not exist unless you cut yourself off from the rest of the world by also disabling the TCP/IP (routable) protocol stack.

Also, NetBIOS is a command syntax, not a network/transport suite like NetBEUI. (The choice between those does not come down to either-or.)

 

[torrentg]

I been around IRC long enough to know how they get boxes. If you have Netbios running, you'd have ftp servers, Irc clients, xdcc servers amongst other things rooted and hidden. If they want.

If you have Netbeui installed with Netbios disabled, they aren't getting in. They could but it's a waste of time for them when so many others are easily rootable. Meaning, they're not going to get in by exploiting shares.

On my network, I haven't ever been able to get so close to theoretical max speed on my 100 mbps network without it. Using NetBEUI, I get 10.5-11.5 MB/s across machines. Previously using Netbios, same settings otherwise, I'd get 6 or 7 MB/s.

 

[torrentg]

Not only is NetBEUI one of the fastest and most efficient protocols, it has a very small memory requirement. It has a very small stack size. Machines with less available RAM will benefit alone from that.

Gateway Support - What are some of the basic protocols?

See bottom post: Netbeui? [Archive] - WinDrivers Computer Tech Support Forums

http://network.infocrystals.com/common_protocols.asp

NetBEUI

Microsoft NetBEUI | Suite101.com

"For small LAN, NetBEUI is a blessing."

 

[H2SO4]

I appreciate you going to the trouble to provide arguments for what you're saying, so it's only fair that I should do the same to explain why I disagree with the advice to introduce NetBEUI into the OP's mix:

- The OP's problem has a solution which includes only TCP/IP. By introducing NetBEUI into the mix, at best they would be masking whatever afflicts their current TCP/IP configuration.

- From a security standpoint, there is no advantage to binding NetBEUI to the machines' interfaces as a secondary protocol stack. You'd be somewhat safer if you used NetBEUI and completely removed TCP/IP, but that would of course completely cut off the network from the Internet. With both TCP/IP and NetBEUI protocol stacks, the attack surface is technically increased and those machines become vulnerable to both TCP/IP and NetBEUI-based vulnerabilities.

- You haven't actually gotten rid of NetBIOS by using NetBEUI. Quite the contrary. Whereas TCP/IP itself does not require the use of "NetBIOS over TCP/IP" (NBT), and NBT is sometimes disabled for reasons of simplicity and security, NetBEUI is completely dependent on NetBIOS! As you know, the acronym stands for NetBIOS Extended User Interface, and NetBEUI as a transport calls NetBIOS APIs - or rather the single API called NetBIOS().

- To avoid IRC pwnage and the like, it is far more important to follow security best practices than to add a secondary protocol whose presence won't save you anyway (NetBEUI). Keep the machine patched through Windows Update, use a low-privileged account for daily tasks, use a firewall, and optionally install an anti-virus utility with a realtime scanning driver.

- It is absolutely true that NetBEUI, owing to its maximised simplicity, will produce the best throughput in a controlled environment. However, that point is moot nowadays for two reasons:

a) Most machines have sufficient horsepower in the processor and NIC to ensure that it is the disk which becomes the bottleneck, and not the transport protocol.

b) While NetBEUI itself may be simple, it's effective introduction into a TCP/IP world is not always straightforward. Most home users have no wish to understand proper binding order or why certain things may seem to take far longer with two separate protocol stacks (while timeouts are reported from the top-bound stack).

To cut a very long story too short, my advice to the OP is to focus on finding the fault in the modern protocol's (TCP/IP) configuration, rather than to introduce something which was already obsolete in the mid-90s in the hope of masking their problem.

 

[Darcyn]

I'm using normal copy right click copy and paste. And another thing when i copy from 7 to xp speed is 2 megabyte per second. I have no firewalls on both machine. I'll try with dad's notebook which uses vista 32 bit ultimate.

 

[Darcyn]

lol File transfer with vista is slower thn windows 7.
A=Desktop xp
B=Notebook 7
C=Notebook vista
A-B=1.5mb
B-A=2mb
A-C=1.3mb
C-B=900kb

After i saw that all are slow i thought problem is wireless I installed xp on my notebook(drive d: ) to check if it from wireless or not and speed was about 5.5mb per second.

 

[H2SO4]

lol File transfer with vista is slower thn windows 7.
A=Desktop xp
B=Notebook 7
C=Notebook vista
A-B=1.5mb
B-A=2mb
A-C=1.3mb
C-B=900kb

After i saw that all are slow i thought problem is wireless I installed xp on my notebook(drive d: ) to check if it from wireless or not and speed was about 5.5mb per second.

6.75MB/sec is the theoretical maximum, so 5.5 is a good outcome.

Did you test those transfer speeds in [safe mode + net] in each case?

 

[Darcyn]

Yes same speeds under safe mode anyway i'll buy a external disc tomorrow i can copy files fast over. Using 2 os under 1 computer may cause harm? If it cause i ll delete xp.

 

[jelion]

Win7 File Transfers slow: Disable Large Send Offload v2

I found a good lead on another board ( Windows 7 Ultimate - Painfully slow file transfer on ethernet network (cables only) ). Since the problem had a lot of leads which didn't work, I thought I'd cross-post a solution that worked for me.

Specifically, my problem was that file transfers FROM Win7 to XP were slow, measured by seeing network utilization in the Task Manager at about 1%. Transfers from XP to Win7 typically used 80-99% of the network bandwidth. These results were achieved whether the transfer was "push" or "pull".

What worked for me: I went to Local Area Network properties, Configure, Advanced Tab, and disabled Large Send Offload v2. The advice to disable autotuning, RSS, set Speed & Duplex to a specific value, remove from homegroup, did nothing. Ultimately, the settings which worked on my Dell XPS 8100 Win7 Pro 64-bit workstation were as follows:

ARP Offload - Enable
Ethernet@WireSpeed -Enable
Flow Control - Auto
Interrupt Modulation - Enable
IPv4 Checksum Offload - Rx & Tx Enabled
Large Send Offload (IPv4) - Enable
Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4) - Disable
Large Send Offload v2 (IPv6) - Disable
Network Address - Not present (radio button)
NS Offload - Enable
Priority & VLAN - Priority & VLAN Enabled
Receive Side Scaling - Enable
RSS Queues - RSS 4 Queues
Speed & Duplex - Auto
TCP & UDP Checksum Offload (IPv4) - Rx & Tx Enabled
TCP & UDP Checksum Offload (IPv6) - Rx & Tx Enabled
VLAN ID - 0
Wake Up Capabilities - Both
WOL Speed - Lowest Speed Advertised

Hope this proves helpful to someone else.

 

[Alert5]

Thank you for the tip jelion. Your suggestion helped a bit.

To test this I transferred a 7.5GB mpg from my Win7 Pro x64 to an old Linkstation NAS shared folder. The process fluctuated between 5.3M/s, 6.7M/s and 8.0M/s, but mainly transferred at 8.0M/s. The process took a little over 18 minutes. Before applying your tip I would see 7M/s tapering off to slower speeds over time when transferring the same video. The latest transfer test is entirely acceptable performance for me, as it takes away the frustration of hours long processes or ones that failed altogether in the past.

I think the real issue for slow or failed file transfers between Win7 to a NAS or an XP shared folder has more to do with packet size mismatches than anything else. I say this because I was having fits trying to map network drives. It turns out the root cause was the LAN adapters for these devices were not set to use a standard 15xx MTU.

My LAN is gigabit. The LInkstation, the XP box and the Win7 box are all wired through a 1GB/s switch which is also my router. The Win7 box is using a gigabit capable motherboard ethernet connection, the XP machine is using a gigabit PCI NIC card, and the Linkstation allows 1GB/s as well.

I could not even see the Linkstation or XP PC in my Win7 network until I made sure all devices were set to us a "standard" MTU of 15xx as opposed to disparate jumbo frame sizes that I had no way of making precisely the same value. For the PCs this meant disabling jumbo frames and for the NAS, choosing 15xx in the settings. I have the speed set at 1GB/s for all devices.

Voila! The devices popped right up in the "Map Network Drive" browsing window and once created they open instantaneously with a double click.

My suggestion to anyone having file transfer issues is to take a hard look at the frame size settings first.

I just ran another transfer test. About 400 .m4a music files amounting to 2.2GB transferred from my XP PC to an iTunes folder on the Win7 PC in less than 2 minutes. This is at about 28M/s.