locked
Why is Windows 7 so slow in copying network files?

    Question

  • Copying files in Vista was horrible and I thought this was to be fixed in Windows 7.  However, their is very little improvement if any at all.  For example, I am copying 10GB of files from one computer to another on my home network.  The computers are connected to the same hub and sitting right next to each other.  It's taken 22 minutes to copy 10GB of files.  In Windows XP this would have been a minute.

    This type of function should not take so long!  How does one fix this?

    Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:27 PM

All replies

  • Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:02 PM
  • No.  This SHOULD be able to be accomplished from Windows 7 without the use of another application.  How does one speed up file copy in Windows 7?
    Sunday, December 13, 2009 3:24 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

     

    I would like to suggest you update the network card driver and run Windows Update to install all the important updates first.

     

    If it does not work, I also would like to suggest you disable the automatic adjustment for the TCP window size on the network to check the issue.

     

    1.   Click Start, click All Programs, and then click Accessories.

    2.   Right-click Command Prompt, and then click Run as Administrator.

     

    If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.

     

    3.   At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press ENTER:

     

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

     

    4.   Exit the Command Prompt window.

    5.   Restart the computer.

     

    Good luck!


    Arthur Li - MSFT
    Monday, December 14, 2009 4:41 AM
    Moderator
  • Which OS are both PCs running? To get the maximum speed you need SMB2 (included since Vista) on both PCs. When you have 1 XP PC, Windows 7 will use the SMB1 driver and this is much slower.
    Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:22 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

     

    I would like to suggest you update the network card driver and run Windows Update to install all the important updates first.

     

    If it does not work, I also would like to suggest you disable the automatic adjustment for the TCP window size on the network to check the issue.

     

    1.   Click Start, click All Programs, and then click Accessories.

    2.   Right-click Command Prompt, and then click Run as Administrator.

     

    If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.

     

    3.   At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press ENTER:

     

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

     

    4.   Exit the Command Prompt window.

    5.   Restart the computer.

     

    Good luck!


    Arthur Li - MSFT

    The network card drives on ALL of my machines are up to date.  I will try your other suggestion.  Actually, upon reading this closer I have already performed this on all my machines after reading it in another post.  No difference.
    Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:26 PM
  • Which OS are both PCs running? To get the maximum speed you need SMB2 (included since Vista) on both PCs. When you have 1 XP PC, Windows 7 will use the SMB1 driver and this is much slower.

    All the machines are running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.
    Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:26 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

     

    You may check if there is any firmware update for your hub.

     

    In addition, I also would like to suggest you disable IPv6 and perform the following steps to check the issue.

     

    Configure the network card

    ==============

    1. Click the Start Button, type "devmgmt.msc" (without quotation marks) in the Start Search box and press Enter.

    2. Double click to expand "Network Adaptors".

    3. Right click your network card and click Properties.

    4. Click Advance tab. High light Speed & Duplex

    5. If you would like to use the full functionality, please set the Value to the highest Full.

    6. Click OK.

     

    Good luck!


    Arthur Li - MSFT
    Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:32 AM
    Moderator
  • I will try that.  Thanks!
    Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:23 PM
  • Well...that makes no difference at all.  4.25 hours to copy 5.6GB from one computer to the one sitting right next to it seems a little extreme. 

    How does one speed up file copy in Windows 7?  This is rediculous!

    It should be noted that the same file copy on XP or Windows 2003 takes just a whisper...
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 10:34 PM
  • Have you tried taking AV and other security software (or software that installs filesystem filter drivers) out of the picture?
    Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:22 PM
  • Haven't tried that yet but am more than happy to give it a whirl.  One question I would have with that approach is why would Microsoft require one to turn OFF a security application such as Microsoft Security Essentials in order to copy files within their own operating system?
    Monday, December 28, 2009 3:12 PM
  • No difference. 

    1 hour to copy 512MB??  Come on... this use to take a whisper in XP.
    Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:55 PM
  • What kind of data do you try to copy? What's the size of each file? Do you use the Explorer or other copy tools?

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:50 AM
  • Not quite sure what you are asking by "why kind of data do you try to copy"?  It makes no difference.  Also not clear what you mean by "do you sue Explorer"?
    Wednesday, December 30, 2009 2:24 AM
  • Hi,

    I mean, are you copying 100 small file or 1 file which is 512MB? With what kind I mean, which file types (mp3, wma, wmv) doe the files have? Maybe the Explorer tries to generate thumbnails while copying. Maybe this slows down everything.

    Could you make a trace of the copy process?

    Follow this guide http://blogs.technet.com/netmon/archive/2009/05/13/event-tracing-for-windows-and-network-monitor.aspx and look at the time Offsets. Do you see what is slow/what is taking the time?

    André
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:31 AM
  • Wow... just like greased lightning.  A 6.5MB file takes 4.30 minutes to copy from one computer sitting right next to the other.
    Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:02 AM
  • Hi Manny,

    have you made a network trace? Follow my link and capture the network activity while copying the files.

    André
    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:59 AM
  • I saw in another thread that disabling Remote Differential Compression may affect the copy speed positively.  I say try it and see.  Here's how:


    1.  Click the Start orb, Control Panel -> Programs and features.

    2.  Click Turn Windows features on or off.

    3.  Uncheck Remote Differential Compression.


    I did this the other day and I haven't seen a downside so far.  It may have required a reboot; I can't recall.

    -Noel
    • Proposed as answer by Noel Carboni Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:22 PM
    Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:21 PM
  • I saw in another thread that disabling Remote Differential Compression may affect the copy speed positively.  I say try it and see.  Here's how:


    1.  Click the Start orb, Control Panel -> Programs and features.

    2.  Click Turn Windows features on or off.

    3.  Uncheck Remote Differential Compression.


    I did this the other day and I haven't seen a downside so far.  It may have required a reboot; I can't recall.

    -Noel

    Yup... that was the first thing I tried months ago as it is the most common solution offered on the NET.  However, I have also seen on the NET that this actually does nothing.  In my case... it did nothing.
    Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:29 PM
  • This is my last attempt to help you. Please follow link and make a trace of the network activities!

    With the logged time offsets, we can see what takes so long!

    André

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:41 PM
  • I have observed slowness but only when using a library as one of the endpoints. 

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:09 PM
  • How fast is you LAN? What box are you using as your network?
    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe

    Server: ASRock P4-2GHz, 1.5 GB RAM, Linux Server, need IDE/SATA disks for my chess site

    Workstation: Asus M2NBP-VM CSM, Athlon64 X2 4200+ 65W CPU, 2GB RAM, x600, 320GB + 160G backup, Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:43 AM
  • Andre,

    I'm having the same problem - I move large files from my computer to a WD ShareSpace.  In XP, it was almost instananeous, but takes forever in Windows 7.  I did the trace that you suggested, which created a bunch of files and reports.  What do I do with them now?

    Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:50 AM
  • This is my last attempt to help you. Please follow link and make a trace of the network activities!

    With the logged time offsets, we can see what takes so long!

    André

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/

    Sorry... looked at the blog you indicate and didn't see where or how to initiate a trace.  With regards to my LAN speed it is gigabit, gigabit NICs (latest drivers), gigabit router (latest firmware).  The issue is clearly Windows 7.  It's amazing there is still no answer here.
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:15 PM
  • One last suggestion comes to mind. On Windows use chkdsk /f /r and see if the disk is working properly.

    On the remote machine, if you are using Linux you need to come to my site for support.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe RaidMax Smilodon, 680W, Asus M2NBP-VM CSM, AMD X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2-800, HD2400 Pro, more details on my site, need a new boot disk, existing one is 5 years old
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:04 PM
  • I have already done that.  On another note, this is not only on one machine... this happens on all 8 of my machines.
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:06 PM
  • Try checking cables, I use cat 6 so there is no problems with my wire. Also check NICs as they do fail occasionally. Also what kind are you switch are you using?

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe RaidMax Smilodon, 680W, Asus M2NBP-VM CSM, AMD X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2-800, HD2400 Pro, more details on my site, need a new boot disk, existing one is 5 years old
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:18 PM
  • This morning it took 15 minutes to copy 256MB to a USB 2.0 Flash drive.  In XP this would have been a whisper.
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:48 PM
  • That is very slow. Given the problem, I will need to ask for detail hardware speccs to start with. I can fix the problem but my crystal ball is not that good.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe RaidMax Smilodon, 680W, Asus M2NBP-VM CSM, AMD X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2-800, HD2400 Pro, more details on my site, need a new boot disk, existing one is 5 years old
    Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:56 PM
  • Yup......that's impresively slow...  Wonder why MS hasn't fixed this yet.
    Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:11 AM
  • Are you copying large numbers of very small files?

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe RaidMax Smilodon, 680W, Asus M2NBP-VM CSM, AMD X2 4200+, 2GB DDR2-800, HD2400 Pro, more details on my site, need a new boot disk, existing one is 5 years old
    Sunday, April 04, 2010 5:40 AM
  • I have the same problem. I copy several files from a windows 7 machine to a shared network drive on an XP box. The small files copy very quickly but the massive file of 60 GB never finishes. It starts out fast but immediately drops down to about 20 kB/s and from there the transfer speed continues to drop until it reaches almost nothing (after 2+ hours). I've tried everything listed above as I've seen the same suggestions in posts on other sites where this issue is also noted but nothing helped. I've given up on it as I've already spent countless hours trying to get it to work, but if you get yours working Manny please post what you did here so I can try it out ... no other site has declared finding a solution to this issue yet.

    Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:44 PM
  • I also have the same problem.  I just installed Win7 x64 and can copy files from a network drive located on a Win2003 x32 machine with typical fast speed, but when I attempt to copy files (any files any size) from a network drive located on a WinXP x32 machine, it is very very slow (5 hours for 1GB).
    Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:48 AM
  • I did the following to resolve this issue of very slow network browsing.  Using Win 7 pro 32bit (laptop) - copying files from a Win 2003 server.  Took 3 to 5 minutes just to open the network share when you go to start - run and type \\servername\folder and want to copy files...

    Maybe this will help you guys:

    Open your network card properties (right click on the network icon(bottom right) and select "open nw and share center.  Click on "local area connection" - properties and configure.  Click the Advanced tab.

    Battery mode link detection = NO ENERGY SAVING
    Battery speed settings = Full
    Flow control = tx and rx enabled
    Speed and duplex = auto
    Leave others on default

    In my setup, disabling the battery mode link detection, solved the problem.
    It is also a great idea to always disable any power saving by going to the "power management tab" and deselecting the option there.

    Hope this helps.

    Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:36 AM
  • I ran across a setting in a Windows server tuning document that sounds suspiciously like it could be involved with this problem...

    Found in this document:  http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/Perf_tun_srv.mspx

    General Tuning Parameters for Client Computers

    ·         DisableBandwidthThrottling

            

    HKLM\system\CurrentControlSet\Services\lanmanworkstation\parameters
    \(REG_DWORD)

     

    The default is 0. This setting is available starting with Windows Server 2008 SP2. By default, the SMB redirector throttles throughput across high-latency network connections in some cases to avoid network-related timeouts. Setting this registry value to 1 disables this throttling, enabling higher file transfer throughput over high-latency network connections.

     -Noel

    Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:24 PM
  • Manny,

    I have to agree with you, something is dead wrong when it comes to network transfers in Windows 7. I can't compare with Vista, since I was only able to take all the problems in Vista for 2 days - before it was back to XP, but now I'm feeling more or less "forced" to make the switch to W7 and embrace the new world. Which for most parts would be ok, if it didn't take forever to transfer files across a network, that under XP was never a problem. Now most of the times, the copy won't even complete and I have to try again and again - before finally getting my data where they belong. This is a brand new machine, and have been tested with XP also in the same hardware configuration and there is no problems. ...but when installed with Windows 7 Pro X86 or X64 version, network transfers speed and success rate is a joke. First of all, this should be such an essential thing, that it should just work right out of the box - but believe me, I have tried every little tip and fix that I can come across through various forums; but with no improvements.

    • Proposed as answer by erukio Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:03 AM
    Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:15 AM
  • Similar situation here.  Network copy to an Intel NAS from either a Win 7 Pro 64 laptop or desktop _or between the two Win 7 machines_ runs OK for large files, but decays to less than 1MB/sec for many small files.  GigE network, fast drives.

    What's really interesting is that running a Virtual XP machine _within_ the slow Win 7 box and transferring files from there runs much faster than in native Win 7.

    Clearly a Win 7 issue IMNSHO.  And a major issue at that.  My NAS is useless for general file storage when used with Win 7 machines.

    Z.
    Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:30 PM
  • This is truly absurd. We have 15 boxes in our network, including this one which is has been running Win7 Ultimate x64 since last September. This has been a CONSTANT issue with this machine. I have had it, and this issue MUST BE addressed and resolved by Microsoft.

     

    I have spent the past 3 hours benchmarking, and the ridiculous results are below. I have been copying the files back and forth from/to this machine or VIA this machine. First, the details:

     

    FILES:

     

    File1 - 4.97 MB

    File2 - 46.7 MB

    File3 - 183 MB

     

    Total size: 235 MB -- All files copied simultaneously (via drag and drop)

     

    NETWORK:    Mixed network some GB cards, some MB cards, router/hub GB

     

    MACHINES:

     

    Machine1 (GATEWAY)  - Windows Server 2003 SP3 x32 - 2 processors - 4GB memory (ISA Server)

    Machine2 (CSG-MAIL) - Windows Server 2003 R2 x64  - 4 processors - 8GB memory (Exchange Server)

    Machine3 (CSG-NS1)  - Windows Server 2008 SP3 x64 - 8 processors - 16GB memory (Name Server AD)

    Machine4 (CSG-NS2)  - Windows Server 2008 SP3 x64 - 2 Processors - 4GB memory (Backup Name Server AD)

    Machine5 (CSG-WS1)  - Windows 7 Ultimate x64      - 16 Processors - 32GB memory (3D workstation)

     

    THE RESULTS:

     

    120kb  /sec -    GATEWAY   to CSG-MAIL  via WIN7(CSGWS1)

    120kb  /sec -    CSG-WS1   to CSG-MAIL

    490kb  /sec -    CSG-WS1   to CSG-NS2

    500kb  /sec -    CSG-WS1   to CSG-NS1

    10.5MB /sec -  GATEWAY   to CSG-WS1

    11.1MB /sec -  CSG-NS1   to CSG-WS1

    12.2MB /sec -  CSG-MAIL  to CSG-WS1

     

    I am not bothering to do all of the permutations, but as you can see from above this is not a network issue (120kb/sec one way, but 11.5MB the other? -- give me a break). This is not a network card issue. This issue is CLEARLY isolated to the CSG-WS1/Win7 machine. I have tried all of the ideas posted above and not a single one has worked over the past 8 months.

     

    I would truly like either an answer to this issue (would be nice if someone actually took responsibility for this problem and admitted that it actually existed as opposed to the SOP of Microsoft to blame the end-user), or at the very leats a HOTFIX, as SP1 for Win7 is not scheduled for delivery until at least 2011.

     

    Would someone please have some integrity, stand up, and fix this?

     

    Thank you.

    • Proposed as answer by erukio Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:04 AM
    Friday, May 28, 2010 12:26 AM
  • I don't think this is a problem with Windows 7 64-bit or at least not just with Win 7 64-bit.

    I have a home network with computers running Win7, XP and other systems.  I have long had a problem with slow transfers from one computer (a Dell Latitude E6400 running Win 7 64-bit) to a Western Digital network drive.  I do not have a similar problem transferring from the E6400 to other drives on the network.  Nor do I have a problem transferring between the WD network drive and a different computer (an AMD 64 chip running Win7 64-bit).

    I've also found that I get quick transfers between the E6400 and the WD network drive (a 4-TB MyBookWorld) immediately after rebooting the WD drive.  I discovered this after I updated the firmware on the drive, which entailed a reboot.  Just after the firmware update/reboot the transfer to the drive was quick.  Sometime later the transfer speed between the E6400 and the WD network drive was back to the snail's pace everyone else has been experiencing.  So, earlier today I tried rebooting the WD network drive, and viola, a fast transfer.  I'll see how long the fast transfers last. 

    By the way, I also notice the same slow access (or fast after rebooting the WD network drive) when I access the drive through iTunes to add files to the iTunes library or modify any of the information for either an mp3 or mp4 file. 

    I'm not technically savvy enough to have any idea what this means, but maybe it can help someone who is begin to narrow where the problem is.  My theory is that the Win7 64-bit system on the E6400 is at some later point changing some kind of setting with respect to accessing the WD network drive and that causes the problem.
    • Edited by PSzymanski Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:51 PM typo
    Sunday, May 30, 2010 1:15 PM
  • Do you have any idea where this would be in the Win7 registry?

     

    Noel posted:

     

    I ran across a setting in a Windows server tuning document that sounds suspiciously like it could be involved with this problem...

    Found in this document:  http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/Perf_tun_srv.mspx

    General Tuning Parameters for Client Computers

    ·         DisableBandwidthThrottling

            

    HKLM\system\CurrentControlSet\Services\lanmanworkstation\parameters
    \(REG_DWORD)

     

    The default is 0. This setting is available starting with Windows Server 2008 SP2. By default, the SMB redirector throttles throughput across high-latency network connections in some cases to avoid network-related timeouts. Setting this registry value to 1 disables this throttling, enabling higher file transfer throughput over high-latency network connections.

     -Noel

    Sunday, May 30, 2010 1:27 PM
  • In the registry.  HKLM == HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE

    Full key path:  HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\LanmanWorkstation\Parameters

    DWORD value name:  DisableBandwidthThrottling

    Windows 7 does not define the DisableBandwidthThrottling value by default, but that doesn't mean it isn't checked by the software.  I simply don't know if this is the case.

    You could try adding the value and setting it to 1.

    -Noel

    Sunday, May 30, 2010 3:31 PM
  • Thanks.  I should have been able to figure that out but didn't.

    Don't know why but the transfer speed was back to a snail's pace.  I tried the DisableBandWidthThrottling (created the DWORD and set it to 1, rebooted) but it didn't make any difference.  Still very slow transfer.  Then I rebooted the WD Network drive.  And, again, back to a quick transfer.  (See my post above, 6-1/2 hours ago.)  Don't know why it changed.

    Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:50 PM
  • About 3 weeks ago my network copies to and from a Window 7 Ultimate machine to a Dlink DNS323 NAS dropped dramatically.  From copy times of less then a minute to copy 700MB times of 2 hours and 5 minutes.  I've been following threads like this ever since looking for a solution.  Following some of the suggestions above the copy time dropped to about an hour.  Looking at the adapter configuration per one of the above suggestions,  I tried bumping  the jumbo frame size to 9014 bytes (it was 1514).

    My copy rate is now about 15MB/sec (about 45 secs for 700MB).  This is in the same ballpark it was before this problem occured. 

    Monday, May 31, 2010 3:30 PM
  • we ever gonna get a patch for this?
    Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:40 PM
  • When I backup my development files to my server, I use an archive tool called 7-zip which compresses everything. I find this faster then a simply copy job as my Visual Studio folders have thousands and thousands of small files.

    Keep in mind the overhead of the LAN makes things slower when vast numbers of small files are moved around. In contrast the same copy to another hard disk is faster as there is less overhead.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe Need a some parts finish the new server, see the site for remaining items needed
    Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:49 PM
  • I tried bumping  the jumbo frame size to 9014 bytes (it was 1514).

    Sawicki, can you please describe how to do this in just a little more detail?  This could help a lot of folks.

    -Noel

    Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:29 PM
  • Noel, there is no need to fiddle with the network settings. The default is designed to make the system the most effective with good quality wire. The only time those need to be adjusted is with long distance hauls using fiber.

    Copper does not need to be tweaked.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe Need a some parts finish the new server, see the site for remaining items needed
    Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:34 PM
  • Sorry Vegan but that just not true.  Tweaking MTU and Jumbo frames is extremely common these days with iSCSI gaining popularity as the SAN connect of choice.  Even NetAPP SANs recommend it when mounting NFS shares.  On high speed networks fewer, large packets has been proven to reduce overhead while providing better performance.  Good reference can be found here:

    http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html

     

    Now back on topic:  Windows 7 has some odd file transfer issues that I simply can't deny.  I have seen, and can usually easily reproduce the problem listed above where copying data form Windows 7 would take 10 times longer than doing the same copy from XP ... and thats using the same two computers as a test bed.  Really odd stuff I'e not been able to trace down yet.

     

    I've not tried using 3rd party copy tools to see if htat makes a difference ... if so there's clearly either bad code or over-aggressive throttling going on ... interesting results either way.

     

     

    Friday, June 04, 2010 12:57 AM
  • I have been working with Ethernet sicne the days of thick cables. The thin cable that was popular with the PC was called cheapernet. Later UTP surfaced and the world slowly moved to a hub based architecture. Since then gear has fallen in price from $2000 a card to $20 and speed has risen from 10 megabits to 10 gigabits.

    I have used all manor of cables including fiber.

    So I have a lot of experience with it.

    As for iSCSI, that is a different protocol that is used in the high-end of the market with mainframes and supercomputers.

    I have worked with Syetem 360 mainframes and onwards. I still work with supercomputers to this day.

     

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe Need a some parts finish the new server, see the site for remaining items needed
    Friday, June 04, 2010 1:05 AM
  • vegan thats great....

    ...still waiting for a solution.

    • Proposed as answer by erukio Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:09 AM
    Sunday, June 06, 2010 9:34 AM

  • Now back on topic:  Windows 7 has some odd file transfer issues that I simply can't deny.  I have seen, and can usually easily reproduce the problem listed above where copying data form Windows 7 would take 10 times longer than doing the same copy from XP ... and thats using the same two computers as a test bed.  Really odd stuff I'e not been able to trace down yet.

    Like I said above, I don't even need two identical boxes to show the problem.

    I can run a test on my Win 7 box, then fire up XP in a VM under Win 7 on the same box and run the same test, and the Win XP VM is faster than the native Win 7 hosting it.

    Ridiculous.

    Z.

    Sunday, June 06, 2010 9:14 PM
  • As I posted above, this issue needs to be acknowledged and addressed. If you look at my benchmarks (ABOVE - May 28th), the following can be easily deduced:

    1. Not Drive Isse - These benmarks were taken from Windows machines, not Western Digital or any other Network Drives
    2. Not Wire Issue - If the wire was 'cheap', then bi-directional transfer speed rates would be similar. One direction 120kb/sec vs 12.5MG/sec the other direction tells me that the wire is not the issue

    There must be a setting in the registry SOMEWHERE that is enforcing the Win7/OS to slow this down. I need to know what that registry setting is so that I can modify it accordingly.

    If there is no registry setting, then the base code needs to be reviewed for this issue.

    Please can someone identify the problem and get a resolution. Thank you.

    • Edited by Czaste Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:11 PM updated
    Monday, June 07, 2010 2:48 PM
  • I too would like to see a resolution to this problem. I do not think it is a network issue per se, because I am experiencing the same issues when copying to/from USB devices. I get the same slow transfer speeds, down to 200 KB/S. The issue seems to occur mostly when copying a lot of small files, bigger files do not seem to suffer a similar transfer speed hit.

    Something is wrong with the core Windows 7 code related to file transfer operations and MS don't acknowledge the issue at all.

    Vinnie

     

     

    Monday, June 14, 2010 11:20 AM
  • Does Microsoft monitor these forums?  I'm experiencing the same issues. 
    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:56 PM
  • This is truly absurd.

    I agree Jhoell.  This is absurd. My XP network has been running solid for years.  I transfer files across the machines in my XP network at great speed.

    I bought my daughter a Windows 7 laptop for graduation.  I get this...

    Photobucket

     

    3 hours to move a couple gigs of data.  This is a brand-new machine with no modifications.

    This thread is seven months old, but I will continue to check back for a resolution.

    Any help appreciated.

    • Proposed as answer by erukio Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:10 AM
    Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:18 AM
  • What is the Windows version of the PC which shares the data (\\DuoBox)?

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:27 PM
  • You may experience poor file copy performance over the network in Windows 7 PCs. This could be caused by the Wndows “Remote Differential Compression” engine. Remote Differential Compression is a Windows feature introduced in Windows Server 2003 and is available on all later versions of Windows. This Windows feature is enabled by default in Windows 7.

    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.

    If there is a similar problem in your Windows Vista PC, you may try this and check if this helps.

    Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:02 PM
  • Duplicate of data posted in various locations around the internet, such as: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7install/thread/084f8fed-50d4-4f50-9fd5-e60403c843c9
    Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:20 PM
  • As I stated above, I have tried every 'fix' suggested in this thread, including the one right above. No 'tweak' has made any difference.

    If indeed any Microsoft staff monitor this forum, I would appreciate a response to all of our questions.

    Thank you.

    Friday, June 18, 2010 12:18 AM
  • I am having the exact same problems with Windows 7 on my network. So frustrated. I have tried ever "fix" or "hack" out there on the internet and nothing has worked.

    I have a Linksys WRT610N router with most recent firmware.

    Here are my network clients:

    A) Windows 7 Pro x64 Desktop PC acting as media server, connected to router over Gigabit Ethernet.

    B) Windows 7 Pro x64 on Macbook Pro running natively via bootcamp, GigabitE

    C) Mac OSX Snow Leopard 10.6.4 on same Macbook Pro, GigabitE

    D) Same Windows 7 Pro x64 running on Macbook Pro but under Parallels Desktop v5, GigabitE

    E) AppleTV hacked to run XBMC under AppleTV OS as well as Ubuntu 8.04., 100Mbit Eter

    A-->E via WinSCP = 1.8-2.2MB/sec ~ 16 megabits/sec

    B-->E via WinSCp = 1.8-2.2MB/sec

    C-->E via Fugu SCP = 8MB/sec ~ 64 megabits/sec

    D-->E via WinSCP = 1.8-2.2MB/sec (CRAZY because it's the same computer 5 seconds earlier I was getting 8MB/sec under OSX)

    A-->C via SMB = 3MB/sec

    A-->C via Microsoft Remote Desktop Client = 9MB/sec

     

    The weird thing is that up until about 3-4 weeks ago I wasn't having (or wasn't noticing these problems). I could stream 720p and 1080p content from A-->E with zero problems. Then one day I started getting "buffering" messages about every 30-60 seconds, so I started looking into transfer speeds. I have re-installed Win7 on A. I have re-installed ATV OS on E. I have installed Ubuntu 8.04 on E, and I still get slow transfer speeds.

    I haven't tried to run Windows XP on A yet to check transfer speeds, but that is my next step.

    What the ____ is wrong with Windows 7 network file transfers?

    Is it a recent Windows Update patch that changed something?

    Friday, June 18, 2010 2:04 PM
  • Dear Folks,

    In this long thread there's an issue that I haven't seen. Since 8088 there's the Moore's Law, and the processors indeed have increase speeds, motherboards have increase speeds as well. In recent years, there's a increase in the number of cores, 3d level cache, network speeds. But the physical elements of the computers haven't increase their speeds in years. Hard Disk haven't increase their speeds that much . The fastest disks now are spindles at 15000 rpm, the track to track performance are in the 5 miliseconds range for all. Even, when many of us buy a laptop, buy teras of disks of 5400 rpm for laptops and 7200rpm for desktops (33% less in disk performance).

    In performance, we have to look after the bottlenecks, and that'll be the hard disks always. No matter that we put then in giga-arrays, around Fiber Channel connections, EMC2 arrays, the HDD will always be the  slowest link and hence the bottleneck. To diminished this issue in the servers, some vendors put many, really many, disks in a multiple access fashions, writing and reading data in small chunks to many disks. In workstations and laptops this tasks are made by the processor, it orders the SATA/IDE interface to fetch a block of data from the disk and wait for the result, then do something, fetch another block and so on. If the file is segmented and big it'll be searching chunks of files around the spindle. OSs can't do much about that, no matter what version you got. After, spindles, look after NICs, routers, cables, etc.

    All these processes are happening every time a file is requested to be transferred. If you take 10GB of files , these files are segmented, so the search for blocks will make the process even slower. For example, at 100 Mbps NICs, you may find transfer speed at a 27 MBps in a single file. Doing some math you'll get around 6 minutes to transfer the file if it were in a single file. But any new file generates a stop in the transfer process to search the file and so on.

    My recommendation, when you have the files packed in a zip file, then transfer them. You got two advantages, a single file to transfer and a possible reduction in the size of the total transfer. Look, if possible, for the fastest transfer speed available. If you're transfering to another laptop, get a Crossover cable and connect the conputers directly. Check the connection speed of both NICs to be at the maximum possible speed.

    Enjoy yourselves,

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:30 AM
  • Alfredo,

    Thanks for trying to enlighten us, but maybe you should read all of the details in the thread first next time.

    Did you miss the posts where I and another user mentioned that on the same exact machine, running a different OS (even in a virtual environment) we get much higher transfer speeds?

    This is not about hard drive read speeds, or zipping files, etc... It's about needing to figure out how to fix a problem with Windows 7.

     

    -T

    • Proposed as answer by erukio Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:13 AM
    Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:14 PM
  • Hi Trevor,

    Thanks for your comments. Certainly I didn’t read the 65 posts, I sampled some of them to make mine. I took a moment to read yours in detail. There, you include 7 computers where the only one I’ll comment is the computer A. The other computers are, in one hand, out of the scope of this Forum, and in the other hand, I don’t work with them. In a quick check, only computer A is a true Windows 7, computers B and D are virtual machines (as far as I know). From the viewpoint of my post, Virtual machines are a big files read by the OS and mounted in memory and managed by memory vectors by the processor. So, when you transfer a file from a VM to another computer, you’re essentially, transferring a file, within a file to other computer.

    I did a test. I took a couple of machines and a Switch:

    A: Sony Vaio Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits, 1.73Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 100Mbs NIC, 100GB disk (4200rpm),

    B: Dell Inspiron 8600, Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bits, 1.8 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 100Mbps NIC, 100GB (7200rpm)

    C: D-Link 8 ports Switch 10-100Mbps

    And I made two tests:

    T1:Transfer a single file of 2.23GB A-->B

    http://cid-f38f0129a08b58e3.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/DataFiles.jpg

    http://cid-f38f0129a08b58e3.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/W7TransferBigFile.jpg

    T2: Transfer a lot of files B-->A: My data files consisting on 4.14GB on 7091 files and 940 folders.

     http://cid-f38f0129a08b58e3.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/W7TransfertimeSmallFile2.jpg

    There’s a difference in the behavior. In T1, transfer speed reach peaks of 99.98% at about 13 Mbytes per sec to 15 MBytes per sec; the most important in a sustained speed. The initial time to transfer 2.23 Gb was 5 min. In T2, even though the transfer speed reached 99.5% aprox., it is not sustained with variations from zero to 99.5%. The initial time to transfer 4.14 GB was 35 minutes. I didn't complete the transfers.

    With these test I hope to show two things:

    A: Windows 7 is not slow transferring files. Something else is happening, I mean affecting transfer speed.

    B: The size of the individual files affect the speed of transfer because the limitations on Hard Drives. If somebody want the screen shots, please, mark this posts as useful and include a email to send the file.

    Enjoy yourselves,

    Alfredo Arizaleta

    This Posts is as it is. Nothing more is implied or warranted.

    • Proposed as answer by Alfredo MCT Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:25 PM
    Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:28 AM
  •  With these test I hope to show two things:

    A: Windows 7 is not slow transferring files. Something else is happening, I mean affecting transfer speed.

    B: The size of the individual files affect the speed of transfer because the limitations on Hard Drives. If somebody want the screen shots, please, mark this posts as useful and include a email to send the file.


     

    here Alfredo.  check this thread for some other illustrations.

    so, how do your observations constitute an answer for everybody else here?

     

     

     the self-Propose button should be eliminated from this forum.

    • Proposed as answer by ᅠᅠBanned Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:46 PM
    Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:45 PM
  • Hi Grits n gravy,

    Why not?

    I follow your thread. That is very interesting. Let me generalize, it's assumed that Windows 7 is the fault. I disagree on that. Everybody agrees that Windows XP worked very good. I also disagree. When tests are made, you have to be very careful about what is being tested. What is your network architecture, what services are around, hops you make. In the thread you mentioned, the tests includes many things between the server and the client. I haven't check all this thread on this issue. But everybody is tweacking parameters.

    But some questions arise for me: How many clients are in the network segment, what switches, QoS, what is the traffic in the segment, backbone and so forth. Moreover, there's a expectation that in a faster processor machine, with a faster NIC, faster RAM, everything will go faster that ever. That where I began my participation on this thread.

    When a test is made, isolation is the rule. In latin, Ceteris Paribus, i.e., everything equal, just to change only one parameter at a time. That's the test I've made, isolated, standard machines, standard installation, single and small network segment, everything on the Windows 7 or Vista DVD or from Windows Update. That's is what I demonstrated, I hope. And that's why I proposed my answer as an answer. My question for you:

    Have made a test like that? That will be interesting.

    Regards,

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    • Edited by Alfredo MCT Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:52 PM
    Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:15 PM
  • Hi Trevor,

    Thanks for your comments. Certainly I didn’t read the 65 posts, I sampled some of them to make mine. I took a moment to read yours in detail. There, you include 7 computers where the only one I’ll comment is the computer A. The other computers are, in one hand, out of the scope of this Forum, and in the other hand, I don’t work with them. In a quick check, only computer A is a true Windows 7, computers B and D are virtual machines (as far as I know). From the viewpoint of my post, Virtual machines are a big files read by the OS and mounted in memory and managed by memory vectors by the processor. So, when you transfer a file from a VM to another computer, you’re essentially, transferring a file, within a file to other computer.

     

    I have a Linksys WRT610N router with most recent firmware.

    Here are my network clients:

    A) Windows 7 Pro x64 Desktop PC acting as media server, connected to router over Gigabit Ethernet.

    B) Windows 7 Pro x64 on Macbook Pro running natively via bootcamp, GigabitE

    C) Mac OSX Snow Leopard 10.6.4 on same Macbook Pro, GigabitE

    D) Same Windows 7 Pro x64 running on Macbook Pro but under Parallels Desktop v5, GigabitE

    E) AppleTV hacked to run XBMC under AppleTV OS as well as Ubuntu 8.04., 100Mbit Eter

    A-->E via WinSCP = 1.8-2.2MB/sec ~ 16 megabits/sec

    B-->E via WinSCp = 1.8-2.2MB/sec

    C-->E via Fugu SCP = 8MB/sec ~ 64 megabits/sec

    D-->E via WinSCP = 1.8-2.2MB/sec (CRAZY because it's the same computer 5 seconds earlier I was getting 8MB/sec under OSX)

    A-->C via SMB = 3MB/sec

    A-->C via Microsoft Remote Desktop Client = 9MB/sec

    *****

    It is not only client A that is running Windows 7 natively. Client B is also running Win7 natively, not in a virtual environment.

    I should point out that not ony have I tried these file transfer operations via my Linksys WRT610N, but I have also used a crossover cable to directly connect separate network clients together. I have the same results whether over the switch built in to the router, or whether via crossover cable.

    I have isolated it down by every possible means to Windows 7.

    And please don't dismiss my other network clients as being outside the scope of this forum. Every single one of them is has a problem every time I interject Win7 into the mix.

    Does anyone have any additional bright ideas as to how to troubleshoot this further or narrow it down even more?

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:28 PM
  • Hi Grits n gravy,

    Why not?

    I follow your thread. That is very interesting. Let me generalize, it's assumed that Windows 7 is the fault. I disagree on that. Everybody agrees that Windows XP worked very good. I also disagree. When tests are made, you have to be very careful about what is being tested. What is your network architecture, what services are around, hops you make. In the thread you mentioned, the tests includes many things between the server and the client. I haven't check all this thread on this issue. But everybody is tweacking parameters.

    But some questions arise for me: How many client are in the network segment, what switches, QoS, what is the traffic in the segment, backbone and so forth. Moreover, there's a expectation that in a faster processor machine, with a faster NIC, faster RAM, everything will go faster that ever. That where I began my participation on this thread.

    When a test is made, isolation is the rule. In latin Ceteris Paribus, i.e. everything equal, just to change only one parameter at a time. That's the test I've made, isolated, standard machines, standard installation, single and small network segment, everything on the Windows //Vista DVD or from Windows Update. That's is what I demonstrated, I hope. And that's why I proposed my answer as an answer. My question for you:

    Have made a test like that? That will be interesting.


    Several of us have made tests like that, but from what I read here, _you_ have not.

    Same host machine, same target, same network, same hard drive, same files.   XP is reasonably fast, Windows 7 is slow as snot.  What is so <bleep>ing hard to understand about that.

    Either re-read the thread and respond to the actual test cases, or please go away.

    Z.

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:58 PM
  • Hi grits n gravy,

    I'm trying to test network transfer of files.The title of this post is: Why is Windows 7 so slow in copying network files?

    that's half of what you imagine you're getting.

    I don't expect anything. What I saw was my network card (100 mbps) maxing at 99.98%, sustained. I'm not working at Giga speeds. So, I can't give such results. Please see the graphs about the tests.

    you had to abort after 35 minutes?

     I was supporting a point on my initial post (Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:30 AM) about network transfer of files and fragmentation or small files. I didn't finish the transfer, I didn't have to. From the purpose of my test, I get my results.

    did you then copy it onto a Sandisk flash stick and carry it over by hand?  so, what good is your network?  all you have demonstrated here is that your network performs poorly and you choose to be blind to that fact.

    I'm working at 100 Mbps, that's my network. As it, it goes perfect. I'm not blind to it. Please check  at: http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/ShopDetail.asp?ProductID=269 for a description of my switch. Please read this post with my comment about Sustained throughput of Hard Drives: check this thread

    you should identify where the problem lies and try to fix it, instead of making heady dissertations that deny it.

    I'm trying to identify the problem.. I don't agree that the problem is Windows 7. I put a factor of performance into consideration. I'm not suppose to fix it.

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:12 PM
  • Hi zoltan the gipsy,

    Please read my comment on this post in Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:28 AM when I published my tests.

    Same host machine, same target, same network, same hard drive, same files.   XP is reasonably fast, Windows 7 is slow as snot.  What is so <bleep>ing hard to understand about that.

    I suppose you install your Windows 7 machine from a clean install, or you did an upgrade to Windows Vista and then to Windows 7? ( http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/help/upgrading-from-windows-xp-to-windows-7). If you did a clean install, where did you get your drivers, from WHCL (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx)? Form the OEM?, Third party drivers , such driverkit.com or driverdown.com?. Are you devices supported by Windows 7?

    Alfredo Arizaleta



    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:48 PM
  • Hi Trevor,

    Sorry for my misunderstanding. I don't know Apple Mac Pro, I don't work with them. Please read my comment on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:28 AM.

    Sorry again, I'm not trying to dismiss your case or clients, but that's issue of Interoperability that may be addressed by other Microsoft Products on Windows 2008 Server, out of the scope of this Forum, I believe.

    What I did was to search at Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Central at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx and MacBook or bootcamp are not supported products by Microsoft. This means that the issues with your products must be supported by its OEM or provider. In this case, Apple Inc, or bootcamp software maker. When a product appears on this Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Central or is a Product Designed for Microsoft Windows, it means that the product has been tested by Microsoft and it have no issue with its performance or with the operating system and it works at it should.Is your machine A, Windows Logoed?

    As I understand, in your case, you may have drivers for you installation that may have performance issues. So, the problem could be traced by the driver you're using to make Windows non-compatible hardware to work.

    About your specific question: Is it a recent Windows Update patch that changed something? Please check at you Windows 7, Control Panel, Programs and Features, Installed Updates. Microsoft Patches, often affects other parts of the OS, but they are careful on that. If any your drivers is non compatible it may be affected by a patch. The Service Packs work with the OS as a whole and all the components are tested. Even though, there's may be issues to correct or non-corrected issues within the service left to another pact or service pack.

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:24 PM
  • Hi zoltan the gipsy,

    Please read my comment on this post in Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:28 AM when I published my tests.

    Same host machine, same target, same network, same hard drive, same files.   XP is reasonably fast, Windows 7 is slow as snot.  What is so <bleep>ing hard to understand about that.

    I suppose you install your Windows 7 machine from a clean install, or you did an upgrade to Windows Vista and then to Windows 7? ( http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/help/upgrading-from-windows-xp-to-windows-7). If you did a clean install, where did you get your drivers, from WHCL (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx)? Form the OEM?, Third party drivers , such driverkit.com or driverdown.com?. Are you devices supported by Windows 7?

    Alfredo Arizaleta



    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.

    Alfredo, your questions are just noise.  It was a clean install of Win 7 on both machines, a laptop and a desktop running Pro 64 and Ultimate 64 respectively.  But that's beside the point.  They are clean uncluttered installs.  The laptop is running Lenovo's driver set.  If Windows 7 sucks in that configuration, there's a problem regardless of how much ____ you want to shovel over it.

    I can run a test in Win 7, get crappy rates, fire up XP in a virtual machine _running under the same Win 7 host and machine that I just ran the test on_ and get better transfer rates from the virtual machine transferring the same files.  It is _clearly_ a Win 7 problem.  Even with the extra overhead of the XP virtual machine, it's still faster than the host running natively.

    BTW, when you aborted your test after 35 minutes, you missed the interesting and informative part.  The many small files case shows the worst transfer rate toward the end of the transfer.

     

    Z.

    Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:21 PM
  • Hi grit n gravy,

    Sorry, I have no problem, as I see it so far. I'm OK. I'm transferring full capacity, all computers.

    I didn't answer you at first because I thought you were addressing TrevorCobb. I did it as you requested. No change at all at the end of my tests. Maybe I found not 99.98% but 96%, but still very high.

    I made a change on this test. They were made between a Windows XP SP3 machine (Dell Dimension 8100, 1.4 GHz and 768 MB RAM, 100MBps NIC, Maxtor 250GB 7200 rpm; I have this machine as a double boot with Windows 2008 server) and the Sony Vaio Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits, 1.73Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 100Mbs NIC, 100GB disk (4200rpm).  All NFTS disks. My test files was 2.23GB. I enjoyed this.

    I made a Test Folder on a share on both computers. Share Rights - Read Everyone. The users were just users, neither Power Users nor Admins. At first I had net use of 35% pull from XP. So I checked W7 and I found that my target disk were in Compress State (NTFS) and I uncompressed the folder and the files. Then I tried again to improve to 70%. Then I test one way or another and I found an asymmetry in the transfer from XP to W7. I verified the files and found that my source file on XP was compressed. I decompressed the file and everything turns out to be symmetric throughput at 96%. At last, I have two share folders, uncompressed folders with uncompressed files in them. I retest and I found no asymmetry. Eventually to make the push I had to change share permissions.

    The effect of compressed folder is that the file have to be read from disk, decompressed an then transfer. This extra use of processor, disk and memory affects the final results. In SATA/IDE, the processor takes all the load of reading the disk. If the size of the compressed+decompressed file is big enough, the buffer has to be written to disk (swap file) creating more access to disk. If the file is uncompressed, it has just to be read. Again a disk issue.

    My conclusion on the source/destination push/pull tests you suggested, is that, if there's a difference is because the targets or sources have different conditions (Ceteris Paribus). The effect of compressing is important. Another conclusion is that it is not the Windows 7, but something your are doing that you're not considering in your tests. In this case, compressing Folders and Files. Files could in compressed folders and files in servers as well.

    Is this an answer?

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Friday, June 25, 2010 2:44 AM
  • Hi grits n gravy,

    Please read my comments on Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:12 PM in this thread.

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Friday, June 25, 2010 10:31 PM
  • Hi zoltan,

     

    "They are clean uncluttered installs.  The laptop is running Lenovo's driver set"

    Please verify at Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Central at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx if your Laptop/Desktop are compatible with Windows 7 64 bits, either Pro or Ultimate. When a product appears on this Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Central or if it is a Product Designed for Microsoft Windows, or Windows Logo. It means that the product has been tested by Microsoft and it have no issue with its performance or with the operating system and it works at it should. If it's not, then you have to report to Lenovo support for the performance issues that you've mentioned.

    When you use XP in the virtual machine, it's a 32 or 64 bits? When your using Virtual Machines, there's a Hardware Virtualization Layer between the hardware layer and the OS, that intercepts all the calls btween the virtual OS and the Hardware. Your virtual OS is using a NIC driver fully compatible with the Virtualization Hardware layer and the Virtualization Layer with the hardware. Your native OS is using another driver that goes directly to the hardware (not in Hyper-V). Please see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/10/31/487568.aspx and http://blogs.technet.com/b/windows_vpc/archive/2009/12/07/networking-in-windows-virtual-pc.aspx. It's not clear from what you are saying if you're using Virtual PC Server, Virtual PC or Hyper-V.

    BTW, when you aborted your test after 35 minutes, you missed the interesting and informative part.  The many small files case shows the worst transfer rate toward the end of the transfer.

    I didn't abort after 35 minutes. Maybe after 5 minutes. I wanted to obtain the screen shot. You'd maybe right about the end of the transfer. It may depend on how the files are ordered and how much fragmented they are in the disk.

    Alfredo Arizaleta

    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:34 AM

  • This is truly absurd.

    I agree Jhoell.  This is absurd. My XP network has been running solid for years.  I transfer files across the machines in my XP network at great speed.

    I bought my daughter a Windows 7 laptop for graduation.  I get this...

    Photobucket

     

    3 hours to move a couple gigs of data.  This is a brand-new machine with no modifications.

    This thread is seven months old, but I will continue to check back for a resolution.

    Any help appreciated.


    I see your rig is on par with DOS 2 and floppy drives. I wonder if your network is being interfered with. Check the channel and try another one, and replace wire too.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe Need a some parts finish the new server, see the site for remaining items needed
    Saturday, June 26, 2010 2:23 AM
  • Just wanted to chime in that I am having the exact same slow transfer problems with Windows 7.  The problem is with Windows 7, not with the network, the hardware, or any of the other red herrings.  One thing that seems common among all the folks having problems--gigabit ethernet.  One of the machines has an Intel Pro/1000, the other is the Marvell Yukon 88E8056 Gigabit.  Both machines perform network copies fine when running XP.  However, booting W7, either 32-bit or 64-bit, and the network performance plummets.

    I have been looking for a solution to the problem for several months.  Still no luck. One interesting note--the Mac works awesome.  Transfer time for 14GB of audio files from Win7 to the NAS--24 hours+!!!  With the Mac--a little over 10 minutes.  The XP machine got it done in a little over 30 minutes.

     

    Have tried all the tricks mentioned above.  Sometime Windows7 copies at 5MB/sec, but most the time my transfer speeds are somewhere in the KB/sec range.  Sure would be nice to know what is causing the problem specifically rather then just saying Windows 7 is broken.

    The only fix that has worked for me--forcing the gigabit ethernet cards to run at 100mb/Full when booting Windows 7.  Only way I've ever seen transfers over 10mb/sec
    Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:48 AM
  • Hi HycoWhit,

    I believe that you may have compatibility issues with Marvell Yukon 88E8056 Gigabit Card and Windows 7. That card is Windows Logo card for Windows XP 32-bit (http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/ProductList.aspx?m=x&g=d&cid=&sv=Marvell%20Yukon%2088E8056), but it doesn't appear in Windows  7 Compatibility Center (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/default.aspx).

    In the other hand, Intel Pro/1000 appears in many versions in the same Windows 7 Compatibility Center in either x86 and x64 versions.

    My best suggestion, by now, is to go to Marvell Support (www.marvell.com/support.html). There's drivers version 11.25.3.3 of 4/26/2010. Please try with them to check if they solve your issue.

    Please check a post from myself on Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:34 AM about Compatibility and other posts about NIC performance.

    Alfredo Arizaleta

     


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    • Edited by Alfredo MCT Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:17 AM
    Thursday, July 01, 2010 12:17 AM
  • On my M4A77D I have a RealTek network chip and on my M2NBP-VM has an NVIDIA semiconductor. I have  other network cards. Generally they all work fine but as the number of files grows the slower it can be.

    Now its been a while since I used a Yukon Marvel, I recall having that on an old D915PGN board when I was using an Intel rig.

    I wonder if the machine is too old for Windows 7.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe Need a some parts finish the new server, see the site for remaining items needed, lots of useful goodies on the web site, see resources for the list
    • Proposed as answer by dfo Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:49 AM
    Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:04 AM
  • Hi , I have the same problem while I download the win7 network driver (latest) and install on my PC. once I rollback to previous driver then  the copy speed has been increased.
    Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:53 AM
  • Do you have problem when using internet via wi fi with that computer? try to transfer other files and see whether it can transfer at normal speed (about 1~3mBps for 802.11g) It could be one of the file are virus and the anti virus halt the transfer of that file. If that doesn't work You can also try go to safe mode with networking to try again to isolate software problem.

     To boot into safe mode you press F8 when you on the computer and it's about to show the windows loading screen, then select Safe mode with networking.

    Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:55 AM
  • Updated the drivers--didn't see any change.  Horrible performance at 1GB, acceptable performance when set to 100mb Full Duplex.  Decided to swap out the gigabit switch--poof!  Replaced the HP ProLine with a different switch and the performance sky rocketed.  Not sure whu the Win XP and Unix based machines like the switch and the Win 7 boxes don't--if I figure it out, I'll let you know.  Thanks for your response!
    Monday, July 12, 2010 6:36 AM
  • Hi HycoWhit,

    As I know, there's no standard protocol to set the Tx/Rx speeds between the ports of a switch and the NIC, hence, sometimes, they don't agree on the speed to Tx/Rx. When you set the speed to 100 Mbps Full Duplex you force the Tx/Rx out of the protocol so the switch have to manage the speed. Please see this article at Cisco Web Site to explain further: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_tech_note09186a00800a7af0.shtml

    This experience could be extended to other Network OEMs in the sense that they could have issues with NIC compatibilities

    Enjoy yourself,

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Monday, July 12, 2010 11:58 PM
  • I have an old Linksys WRT54G and it is fine on my LAN. Small files from my development folder are a tad slower as there are a lot of small files and the more small files it does slow down a bit. That is dues to the way Windows opens and closes files.

    I plan to move to 1Gb eventually but my current gear is fine.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++
    Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:13 AM
  • Ok, so I have exactly the same issue with my NAS on a 1Ge ethernet.  When I use my XP machines the transfer is very quick.  I suspect this has something to do with the crappy network setup on the Win 7 Home version.  Since you can't really set up the domains correctly (everything is on "workgroup" I suspect that there is some net binding or packet routing issue.

     

    I have a Dell P440 with an i760 so there is plenty of performance there.  I really think this is due to the network stack and something interfering with is as XP on a virtual machine is quick at file transfers.

     

    Please don't suggest new wires or network cards or hardware.  This "IS" a software and OS Stack related issue and should be escalated to a HOTFIX status.  Basically the product does not work correctly as it stands.

     

    And yes I have a lot of network experience but I'm not going to make bold claims as I do not have a solution for this.

    Friday, July 16, 2010 8:47 PM
  • Hi Cool_blue

    I'm sorry about your complains. I looked into Dell Support Web Site (http://support.dell.com/support/) and I couldn't find your computer. If you give your Service Tag, I'd give a better answer.

    In the mean time, please check my post on June 24th about Windows 7 compatibility and my other posts in this thread as well. Some posts from other persons has been deleted, so my answers seems to be out of context.

    In many new products, the OEM is the one who has the latests drivers and the one who is responsible for them.

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:48 PM
  • To the best of my investigation the problem for me seems to be that windows 7 is multi-threading file copies to/from a single disk.  If you open task manager and from the "Performance" tab select "Resource Monitor" you should be able to see on the "Disk" tab that your disk is getting smaaaaaashed.  It seems utterly insane to multithread like this as you are contributing to disk head thrashing and ultimately slowing down the performance of any file copy where you are trying to transfer more than 1 file...

    I have been searching for a way to force 7 to single thread file copies to no avail but have not stopped looking yet for a solution to this tourettes inducing issue.

    Can an MS tech please respond with some logic to this situation or a work around???

    Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:25 AM
  • Hi PbAu,

    Please read my post on Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:30 AM. There I support the idea that Hard Disks, as a physical elements, are the slowest parts of the computer. Yes, it is around 6 orders of magnitude slower that the processor (access time around 5 ms, against a CPU clock of 2 GHz). Yet disks, either SATA, SCSI or SAS support 200MBps of sustained outpu at best, still an order of magnitude slower against the processor and maybe one-quarter the speed of the memory at 800 Mhz or worst at 1333 MHz memories (http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/enterprise/cheetah/15K.7/SAS/100516226b.pdf).

    Yes, you´re right that the processor is multi-threading hundreds of processes that require HDD access, because of the computer architecture, known as Von Neumann Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture). The CPU ask the HDD for unit of info, then it waits for the answer; when the answer comes, it stores it in the memory and use it for the process that ask for the info. In the mean time, the processor does other tasks while waiting. As a result of a network copy, you may see the processor idling while the disk is trashing.

    AS a characteristic, SATA, PATA or desktop HDD are managed by the CPU, while the the SCSI or SAS have a dedicated CPU that frees the main CPU of taks.

    If you want to see a SATA/PATA disk trashing, do a couple of things on the same spindle, such as make a copy of the file through the network and copy a file from one folder to another while editing a presentation.

    My advice about working with SATA/PATA disks, would be to proceed serially, you as a user of the computer. Foreground process has priority in desktop OS. Two parallel processes could be slower than two process in a series. No matter what CPU-Motherboard-Memory-NIC you may have, because is the slowest element of the computer that is affected.

    Alfredo Arizaleta

     


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Monday, July 19, 2010 11:41 PM
  • still no fix for this, just idiotic replies!

     

    grrrrrr

    Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:43 AM
  • Hi Pumafab,

    Since is your first message on this thread: What's your issue regarding Windows 7 Slow network speed transfers?

    In the mean time, please read my post on this thread on Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:34 AM

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:06 AM
  • Hi Pumafab,

    Since is your first message on this thread: What's your issue regarding Windows 7 Slow network speed transfers?

    In the mean time, please read my post on this thread on Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:34 AM

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.

    You should read the posts besides your own.  If you did you would realize this is happening on multiple machines.  for example I explain here and on other threads that I have 9 machines at home and 6 in my office.  They all experience this issue.  It would be one thing if this was happening on just one machine but as it happens on all machines the issue is clearly as has been state an issue with the OS.
    Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:28 PM
  • Alfredo:  *SHUT* *UP*.  Seriously.  You aren't reading the posts, the most telling of which was a direct reply to a post of yours, in which the reader states that a *VIRTUAL* XP machine gets BETTER PERFORMANCE than the WINDOWS 7 HOST it's hosted on.  Are you deliberately trolling, or a complete and utter moron?

     

    Sorry, all, I never get sucked in by trolls or yell at someone in a forum... I just can't take this guy any more.

    This is a severe issue for me, and after reading all the replies here, I'm convinced it is indeed a Windows 7 issue.  I read in one of the forums (this one?) that a fix for this is pending in SP1... hoping that rumor is true.

    • Edited by SngBrdB Friday, July 23, 2010 3:44 PM type
    Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:28 PM
  • Alfredo:  *SHUT* *UP*.  Seriously.  You aren't reading the posts, the most telling of which was a direct reply to a post of yours, in which the reader states that a *VIRTUAL* XP machine gets BETTER PERFORMANCE than the WINDOWS 7 HOST it's hosted on.  Are you deliberately trolling, or a complete and utter moron?

     

    Sorry, all, I never get sucked by trolls or yell at someone in a forum... I just can't take this guy any more.

    This is a severe issue for me, and after reading all the replies here, I'm convinced it is indeed a Windows 7 issue.  I read in one of the forums (this one?) that a fix for this is pending in SP1... hoping that rumor is true.

    +1

    and

    +1

    That guy is a douche.  If he ever posted something _helpful_ along with the drivel it might be tolerable.

     

    Z.

    Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:53 PM
  • I'm using WIN 7's profile transfer Lunch-Bucket, and it's slower that Molassas. It only wants to move 65GB.  It's taken over 6 hours and I had to kill it.

    Then I fell down the Rabbit hole which is this thread and get even more Torqued-Off after reading over 6 months of blogging including some MVP-of-self poofery and there's still no fix for this?  OMFG.

    This was an issue with Vista too.  The 2 tweak solutions mentioned fixed those.  But not this time.  Now what?


    bunssb.org
    Sunday, July 25, 2010 3:47 AM
  • anybody tried this?

    The fix
    It should be noted that additionally to this I have updated to the latest updates, for Windows, and turned RDC off in Windows Options under Programs/Features.

    How to Disable TCP AutoTuning and Receive Side Scaling

    Open an elevated command prompt with administrator rights.
    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

    Reboot computer

     

    Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:55 AM
  • Hi MannyL,

    The issue that started your thread is not on all the machines. Some machines have issues other don't. Some have other issues. If you have 9 and 6 machines with issues, there's must be elements besides Windows 7 in common, such as old network cards, old device drivers or even unsupported combinations. You have to consider hubs/switches as well.

    Some colaborators on this thread have suggested tuning of tpc parameters since december 2009 that didn't seem to work in your case.

    Could you supply details of the hardware configuration and the source of your device drivers?

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:04 AM
  • Any one has a real fix for the issue.  I am running into the same issue.  350kbs/s transfer speed over the intranet is just ridiculous.  How can copying files over the intranet is slower than downloading from the internet???
    Loc Phan
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:05 AM
  • Hi MannyL,

    The issue that started your thread is not on all the machines. Some machines have issues other don't. Some have other issues. If you have 9 and 6 machines with issues, there's must be elements besides Windows 7 in common, such as old network cards, old device drivers or even unsupported combinations. You have to consider hubs/switches as well.

    Some colaborators on this thread have suggested tuning of tpc parameters since december 2009 that didn't seem to work in your case.

    Could you supply details of the hardware configuration and the source of your device drivers?

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.

    All Windows 7 machines that I use have this issue.  Of the 9 machines I have in my home 6 are Windows 7.  There is NO similarity to any of them other than they all have at least 4GB of RAM, at least 3T of hard drive space and all are dual core.  All the NICs are built into the motherboard.  All machines are at least 1 year old WITH the latest drivers.  In my office at Microsoft, I have 6 other machines of which 4 are Windows 7 and once again... no similarity between them.  I hope that clears that part up.
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:00 PM
  • All Windows 7 machines that I use have this issue.  Of the 9 machines I have in my home 6 are Windows 7.  There is NO similarity to any of them other than they all have at least 4GB of RAM, at least 3T of hard drive space and all are dual core.  All the NICs are built into the motherboard.  All machines are at least 1 year old WITH the latest drivers.  In my office at Microsoft, I have 6 other machines of which 4 are Windows 7 and once again... no similarity between them.  I hope that clears that part up.

     

    Wait, you work for Microsoft?  Isn't there anyone you can take this thread to, some internal pull?!

    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:38 PM
  • if there is a problem copying files, its usually due to wireless interferece. I use cat 6 wire in my shop and if I could afford it, I could go to 10 gigabits but the old WRT54G is all I have.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:51 PM
  • There are so many idiots in this thread.  Please do not post if you have not read EVERY SINGLE POST.

    Except for Alfredo's.  I stopped reading them after about 2.

     

    I agree that this is a Windows 7 issue and that Alfredo is an idiot.  

    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:29 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

    My question was:

    Could you supply details of the hardware configuration and the source of your device drivers?

    If you want to try: Download Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Beta:

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/ff183870.aspx

    Alfredo Arizaleta


    Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no express or implied warranties or rights.
    Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:01 AM
  • All,

    I did read all threads as painful as that is. 

    Source: Lenovo TPT61p, running Win7-Pro all the latest drivers/etc. Single Gigabit nic and single wireless nic. 

    Source2: Lenove T60p, running WinXp, latest drivers and SP

    Destination: Server 2003 on my home network on a white box personal build. Dual Intel 100mb nic's teams in a load balanced configuration

    Issue: Same as outlined in this thread. Attempt to copy 2GB of files 3 -600mb iso each) plus some small files, copy through drag/drop was 1.5 hours estimated @ 40-160KB/sec. Also copying 1000 6kb files took 12 hours.

         XP-> server 2003 fast copies 10MB/sec or quicker

         Win 7 - > Server 2003 painfully slow, between 40KB/sec -> 160KB/sec

    Solution that worked for me:

    1) Disable the RDC Feature - no change

    2) Set Registry for LANMAN - DisableBandwidth Throlling - no change

    3) netsh int ip set global taskoffload=disabled - no change after disable/enable network card from article - http://www.windowsreference.com/windows-vista/slow-network-copy-and-connection-drops-in-windows-7/

    4) disable power management in device manager for network card

    5) Reboot

    6) Copy speeds jumped up to 10mb+ per sec

    That is my solution.  Not sure it will work for you all but it did for me.

     

    Friday, July 30, 2010 6:27 PM
  • I was having same problem but reading this thread made me so pissed off of the ****ing IDIOT Alfredo that i had to make an account. NOBODY listen to this trolling idiot.

     

    Anyways.. Ok heres a fix.. should be anyways.. Before I was copying 30gb worth of FRAPS videos to my 4tb server.. I was getting Less than a mb transfer speed p/sec which is PATHETIC.. Its Windows 7 problem not your router/hub etc.

    THE FIX: 1.Go to device manager

    2. Right click on Network Adapter and click properties

    3. Click Advanced TAB.

    4. Click on Speed & Duplex. Change from Auto negotiation to 1Gbps Full Duplex.

    5. Change Allow this Device to turn off to save power UNDER Power management

    6. Reboot.

    That should fix it.. Im going to tinker with the settings to see if i can get it going faster

    Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:21 PM
  • Ok.. Heres the FIX that will DRAMATICALLY speed it up... I mean 10x faster.. From 6-10MBs to about 100MB transfer speeds... Same place.. Go to Device manager > Network Adapter properties > Advanced Tab Than Click ON Jumbo Frame.. Set it to 9KB MTU ( or as high as your router and switch supports). If your router and switch supports a Jumbo frame of 9000.. You have to set it to that too. If they do not support that high of a MTU set it too as high as they both support. Windows Defaults to 0 MTU but your router generally supports atleast 1500mtu and more. 1500MTU is generally default.
    Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:13 AM
  • Ok.. Heres the FIX that will DRAMATICALLY speed it up... I mean 10x faster.. From 6-10MBs to about 100MB transfer speeds... Same place.. Go to Device manager > Network Adapter properties > Advanced Tab Than Click ON Jumbo Frame.. Set it to 9KB MTU ( or as high as your router and switch supports). If your router and switch supports a Jumbo frame of 9000.. You have to set it to that too. If they do not support that high of a MTU set it too as high as they both support. Windows Defaults to 0 MTU but your router generally supports atleast 1500mtu and more. 1500MTU is generally default.
    Appears to be adapter specific, none of mine have this option.
    Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:59 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

    Can you please try one thing? From the screenshot and the post, it seems you and other people only tried to copy file in pull mode. Can you please try the push mode? Pull mode is you are on machine A and copy file from machine B to A, and the push mode is you are on B and copy file from B to A.

    This sounds weird but there is some evidence. In pull mode, Explorer seems to use multiple copy threads or concurrent copy requests. To prove it, start the "Windows Task Manager", then the "Resource Monitor" from the tab with the CPU chart. In the resource manager, switch to the disk tab then expand the "Storage" section. You should be able to see a list with a column named "Disk Queue Length". That figure indicates how many pending input / output requests are there for the specific physical disk.

    You should monitor this figure from the machine where the file is being copied from, in my example, it's machine B. In the push mode, this figure  should be fairly low, maybe no more than 5. But in the pull mode, since there are multiple requests, the disk queue length can be as high as 70.

    I don't have any performance issue with the push mode, file transfer rate is usually 90MB/sec over 1Gb switches, but have to say it's not the typical scenario for the file server or home server. With the pull mode, I usually only get 30MB/sec.

    Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:02 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

    Can you please try one thing? From the screenshot and the post, it seems...


    are you speaking of the screenshot from your post, Alfredo?

     

    Friday, August 06, 2010 7:10 AM
  • Add me to the list with a very similar problem.

    When I get home tonight going to try a couple of things in the this thread I haven't already, but there is definitely some major underlying problem with Windows 7 that noone is even admitting that it exists.

    Are they trying to convince people to buy this OS over XP because Vista was a spectacular failure? If so this is not the way to go about it.

    Thread detailing my exact setup and problem: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itpronetworking/thread/f8067300-2770-43f9-b093-d77627db84f6

    Friday, August 06, 2010 2:00 PM
  • Hmm. If you have a recent system than you should have Jumbo Frame in the Network Adapter properties. If not, Id get a PCI network card.
    Friday, August 06, 2010 2:36 PM
  • For me the solution was to disable a feature called wirespeed@ethernet in my Broadcom adapter's advanced properties.
    Monday, August 09, 2010 10:07 AM
  • Hi guys - was reading this after doing my nut in for a few days hunting down this problem. I had an issue copying to the network but not from it. Server 2003/Windows 7. Had 7 machines running XP - no issues. Got two new Dells - 7 professional. Couldn't copy to the network. Changed the speed to full duplex/fastest speed - back to normal. Hope this may help someone.
    Monday, August 09, 2010 5:54 PM
  • Unfortunately I've tried every network setting known to man, using a Dell Alienware. If you read my link above I'm seriously stumped as to what is causing it. All I can say is none of the people or companies I work for are going to have windows 7 recommended to them at this point. There definitely is an issue with intranet connections and the way it handles them. Unfortunately they are not willing to admit it.
    Monday, August 09, 2010 6:37 PM
  • Just thought I'd post my findings. No, I've not found a solution.

    The network:

    3 new computers running 64 bit Windows 7 Business, 2 are workstations, 1 the "file server" New computers have Intel motherboards with onboard Gigabit NICs

    3 computers running Windows XP

    Situation:

    XP computers copy files from the Windows 7 file server as normal. Windows 7 workstations are very slow copying files. Oddly, copying an entire folder is often much faster than copying one file from within the folder.

    What I tried:

    Almost all the suggestions above - highlights - 3 different switches, added older 10/100 Dlink network cards etc.

    Nothing has helped at all. Microsoft, please fix this problem!

     

    Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:19 AM
  • I use  Linux box as my server and I use as a file server as well as a web server. It has been helpful to get around Windows limitations.

    Windows is built with the expectation of a uniform network of computers all running the same version.

    A Windows server is another route.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:05 AM
  • I use an old Mac Pro as a file server, its blazing fast when its a Mac-to-Mac file transfer, when using WinXP under Parallels the network has also achieved close to max speed. However, I'm getting only around 250-400 Kbps/S when connecting using my brand new Dell Studio XPS using Win7x64, its slow as molasses!  I've read this entire thread and kept it in my bookmarks for the last six months, I've tried all of the tweaks suggested so far, but nothing has really improved the performance of LAN transfers permanently.  Kind of regretting going back to MSFT.

    I've been using a google search for "win7 lan transfer speed " to keep track of the situation, seems to come up with the most relevant post (a lot of them!).  This thread is probably one of the most thorough out of them.

    Hope someone here can come up with a solution.

    Friday, August 13, 2010 11:11 AM
  • Windows is built with the expectation of a uniform network of computers all running the same version.

    Where did you get that idea?

    I quite nicely have Windows XP, Vista, 7, and a Macbook on the same net, and have no problems with performance.

    -Noel

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 1:36 AM
  • I have used every version of Windows desktop and server, so I am quite aware of the peculiarities. Most have to do with the domain changes that each successive version of Windows Server brings up.

    These days I use Linux servers as they have fewer headaches. Not perfect, but serviceable.

     

    I have been working with computers since 1971, so I am aware of interoperability in the extreme.

    I have written so many converters and adapters over the years I have lost count.

     

    Its possible the OP's network card is no good too.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Saturday, August 14, 2010 1:40 AM
  • Okay, you have 5 years on me, though I doubt the "ancient history of computing" experience we both have prior to the mid to late '90s means much in the context of this thread.  :)

    Can't say I'm having any problems with serviceability or anything with my Windows servers.  I just checked my subversion server (Vista x64) and it's on its 9th day after a reboot to take Windows Updates...  No errors logged, no crashes since some time in 2009, simply no problems.

    Like Richard Schiff's character says in The Lostd World: Jurassic Park 2...  "You've gotta love it for it to work."  ;)

    -Noel

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:12 AM
  • Generally for simple applications mixed boxes are fine, its more complicated with with AD and a complex forest of servers.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:35 AM
  • Might help if folks would start to post which gigabyte switch they are using. 

    For me the temporary fix was to use the advanced settings on the network card to force a slower NIC speed--100Mb/Full Duplex.

    The permenant fix for me was replacing the switch.  Replaced a NetGear GS600 v2 with a HP ProLine Model J9077A and poof--all the machines started transferring files at the expected speed.

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:06 PM
  • I use Linksys and its backed by Cisco so I am not worried about my LAN at all.

    It has served me well for a long time and I see no reason why it would not continue to.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:22 PM
  • Hi all,

    Same ____ different hardware here.

    4 win 7 Pro Dell E5510 laptops connecting to a database living on a samba share - painfully slow, software is essentially unusable. 

    I have come across several threads in regards to disabling SMB2. One suggestion explained to simply add a registry setting called smb2 in the registry  then reboot. It seems SMB2 was an issue in Vista and not win 7? I am confused and pissed off at the same time...

    http://www.petri.co.il/how-to-disable-smb-2-on-windows-vista-or-server-2008.htm

    http://www.windowsreference.com/windows-vista/slow-network-copy-and-connection-drops-in-windows-7/

    http://www.sysprobs.com/windows-7-network-slow

    still got issues and going back to XP soon... if it weren't for micr$oft$ market share I would go a linux distro like Ubuntu full time.

    Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:26 PM
  • Would like to add.....

     

    I am running 4 operating systems on one machine 7x64 7x32 XPx64 and Fedora 13 x64 all O/S's are on seperate drives and each were installed with only one drive connected, boot preference controlled from BIOS.

     

    System is Phenom 2 965, Asus M4A79XTD EVO, 4 Gig Corsair Dominator DDR 3 @ 1600, all drives are SATA.

     

    My point is, even when transfering files from one drive to another the transfers are remarkably slow when using a Windows 7 O/S. I believe this proves without doubt that the issue is with Windows 7 and not hardware related. I also have the same problem when transfering files to a pen drive or external hard drive.

     

    Hope this helps to clarify the issue.

     

    Steve.

     

     

     

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:33 PM
  • Sounds like the driver for Windows 7 is not configured properly. I wonder if a better one is available from the MB vendor's web page.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:37 PM
  • All,

    Can we stop recommending "downloading latest driver from manufacturer", upgrading to cat 6, disabling auto speed, flow control etc etc etc.

    Reading through this thread it seems everyone has tried this.

    I have tried disabling SMB2 from the registry also but that does not work.

    Does anyone have anything on this? Its driving me nuts!

    Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:49 PM
  • I can only confirm that file copying with Win7 is a catastrophe. I recently switched from XP x64 on this machine (Dell Precision M6400 with SSD and mechanical drive) to Win 7 64-bit. Now copying large files is a nightmare. Same network, nothing changed except the OS. Considering all that has been posted here it is really outrageous that Microsoft are not addressing this as a Win 7 problem.
    Friday, August 20, 2010 7:00 AM
  • Sorry, I've tried to catch up on the posts but I wonder if I've missed anything - has anybody found a solution to this or heard if Microsoft has issued a patch?
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 12:20 AM
  • One think to check out is if there is new firmware for the gateway/router as sometimes that can make things better.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 12:34 AM
  • Vegan,

    NOTHING changes between when the lan supports fast transfer to when it stops OTHER than the OS.

    Considering the number of people suffering this issue it is highly improbable that upgrading router firmware will fix it.

    There is something inherent in the OS that is screwing us around.

    As a side note: When I toggle "Auto Speed" on the lan card on and off, for about 30 seconds I get blistering fast transfer speeds again, so fast I cannot even click the status on a 100Mb file before it disappears as completed.

    Before anyone asks I am using certified and latest drivers.

    Sunday, August 22, 2010 10:30 PM
  • I copied about 120GB earlier today when I backed up a clients machine onto my server. It ran at wire speed fine.

    I had to repair the OS on the machine from scratch as the system was so badly corrupted. Three were lots of errors from the messy disk but other than that it worked fine.

    Putting the files back was faster as there was no error to deal with.

    On the machine before this one, it had a damaged network controller so I installed a card and it worked fine.

     


    Vote if answered or helpful, I am running for Office (joke)! IT/Developer, Windows/Linux/Mainframe I also am a true vegan and I am very good with economics and I used to play chess at 2400++ I have lots of papers on my site for power supplies and video card problems, see the resources section
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 10:42 PM
  • Thats all well and good but has nothing to do with my situation... I have new hardware with win 7 that is slow as but the win xp machine on the same network out performs by a factor of 100. even using an old 100Mb connection is faster.

    Just tried installing this > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9683379 as recomended by this > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-posts-quick-fix-it-links-for-smb2-flaw-in-vista.ars but no dice, speeds are a lowly 3 Mbs

    Anyone else?

    Monday, August 23, 2010 1:00 AM
  • I was struggling with this slow copy problem for months.  I was unable to fix the problem with many tips appeared in this and many other threads.  I once got a normal speed copy when I re-install Win7 OS from the scratch but the problem re-appeared soon.  I also replaced my Gb hub and all Ethernet cables with brand-new ones.  It also brought me a faster copy capability but the nightmare returned in a few days again.

    After further trials, I turned off IPv6 matters as I show below.   These updates seem very effective for the problem so my network is working very fine and fast for days.  Hope it also works fine for you guys.  I applied the following changes to all of Win7 PCs connected to my home network.

    1. Open NIC property and check out "Internet Protocol Version 6 (TCP/IPv6)" in "Network" tab.
    2. Click "OK" to save the cange.
    3. Open NIC property again then click "Config" button.
    4. Click "Advanced Setting" tab (2nd left tab) and turn the following property value to "OFF":
      • TCP Check-sum Offload (IPv6)
      • UDP Check-sum Offload (IPv6)
      • Large Send Offload (LSO) v2 (IPv6)
    5. Click "OK" to save the changes.
    6. Reboot the updated system.
    I set "Jumbo Frame" to 9K but other NIC values are defaults.  After finished the update and reboot, I tried to copy files among PCs.  I got very fast copy speed, appx. 100MB/sec through 30MB/sec., for any direction.  And it still works fine for me.
    Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:19 PM
  • Just saw an email from ZDNet regarding this hotfix:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2265716/en-us

    Notice that one of the affected files is: Redirected Drive Buffering Subsystem (Rdbss.sys) driver.


    I won't be able to test this for several days, but am curious if it will help.

    JGAM

    Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:12 PM
  • Just saw an email from ZDNet regarding this hotfix:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2265716/en-us

    Notice that one of the affected files is: Redirected Drive Buffering Subsystem (Rdbss.sys) driver.


    I won't be able to test this for several days, but am curious if it will help.

    JGAM

    Can anyone confirm whether JGAM suggestion works?

    Has anyone gotten the solution yet?

    On the other hand, not sure if it happens all the time, but i noticed that most of the transfer rate that are being reported are almost identical. Just like below

     

    Photobucket

     

    My issue with Windows 7 also has almost the same slow transfer rate when copying files from the network.

    Any update guys?

    TIA.

    Monday, October 18, 2010 8:48 AM
  • I have been having same issue for all my Windows 7 PC I have.
    These issues I am having has nothing to with the following
    -Network, Switch, Anti Virus, Disk Drive, firmware, drivers....

    Something to do with Windows 7 itself.
    Come on guys, what is the chance of all 10 windows 7 machines having same issue when most of them are not even the same hardware? Yet, when install XP on to same machine, I have no problem with copy speed.

     

    MC

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:31 PM
  • On my LAN, I have a Linux server, 1 Windows 7 machine, 2 XP machines and a bunch of virtual machines.

    Everything works fine. So I suspect there has to be something wrong with drivers, or the source/destination.

    Everyday I move huge amounts of data across my LAN. Never a problem.

    Now I did have to tweak Windows 7 to be able to share on the LAN with XP clients, but other than that there was no other problem, simply was a permissions issue only.

    Read this for how I did that .

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan | PC Reviews

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:38 PM
  • I also had the same transfer problems - worked fine with XP, not with Win7 on same network.

    Win7 transfer speed was a little over 1mbs.  Had a test folder that would take over 8 min to transfer.  Then after reading through this whole thread I changed all of my Network Adapters, Advanced Settings, Link Speed & Duplex from "Auto Negotiation" to "1.0 GBPS Full Duplex"  and WOW, that test folder transfered so fast I thought at first that it didn't work at all - from 8+ minutes to less than a second - click, done.  Couldn't even check speed. Lightning fast on all machines ever since.

    And here I've been suffering with this problem all year and such a simple fix took care of it for me.

    Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:44 PM
  • Well, that took a long time to read!

    Thanks to all those people who had to put up with Alfredo. Your patience is truly something.

    I've had the same problems and eventually I set everything to 1.0GBPS full duplex and rebooted and it I am getting 73MB/second. Praise be instead of 1MB/second.

    I turned up TCP/IPv6 as well. Don't think I need it now anyway.

    Cheers

    Monday, October 25, 2010 10:09 PM
  • Yesterday I got a better machine for use as my web server. So I put my old disk in the machine and it came up. No network so I grabbed a NIC form the box and tossed it on the board.

    Now its on-line. No problem but its really slow. So I updated the OS and it was still slow so I edited the network config to make sure all NICs were DHCP in case of a problem.

    So I pulled the NIC and used the onboard NIC. What a difference, it was 100 times better. So this experience should be considered.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Monday, October 25, 2010 10:14 PM
  • Wow, this is a long thread (and sorry, I didn't read through it all ... just skimmed it), and I hate to be another ... me too, but yeah ... I'm having this issue as well.

    My setup is a Sony Vaio VGN-FW180D using a Intel WGN5100 wifi card to connect to a WRT160NL that is hardwired into my desktop.  Everything is running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.  All the drivers/firmware is up to date.

    Transferring files TO the laptop (regardless of starting it from desktop or laptop) get limited to about 500KB/s.

    Transferring files TO the desktop is speedy, in the 3.5 MB/s.

    As with everyone else ... I've tried everything:

    Disable RDC, Disable Autotune, Disable Firewall (Microsoft Firewall), Disabled spyware (Microsoft security essentials), disabled ipv6, disabled power management.  Nothing has helped.

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:36 AM
  • Remember that performance will vary based on the type of data being transfered, the load on the LAN and the relative performance of your various disk drives.

    Laptop write speeds are slow, while read performance is usually good. Desktop drives are much faster.

    With a gigabit LAN I would expect it to be able to keep up with the notebook no problem but the desktop drives today are even faster.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 4:40 AM
  • Just in case this helps anyone, I seemed to be having a similar problem.  I was running Win7Ult64 on my desktop, copying files just fine to my Windows Home Server.  I rebuilt my desktop to migrate to an SSD and everything was working fine except that large file copies to my server would fail randomly.  However, if I RDPd into my server, I could pull the files that way without a problem.  That ruled out a lot of possible problems.

    Here's what fixed it: I had created a Homegroup from my desktop before I rebuilt it, and that was the group that my new build joined, even though the originating computer no longer existed (I gave the new build a new PC name).  I thought that was suspicious, so I removed all of my computers from that Homegroup, created a new one from the new build, joined all of the other computers to that new Homegroup, and voila - no more problems.

    It's a niche case, but maybe it will help someone else.

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:52 PM
  • Okay - my case is solved - installing new drivers and setting link speed to "auto-negotiation" helped.

    Auto-negotiation is setting my link to 100Mbit Full-Duplex. When I was setting that manually my problem, slow transfers locally, was comming back.

     

    No jumbo packet is set, no offset changed, no remote differential compression changed (still ticked).... only as above.

    Maybe in my case NIC drivers werent good with windows 7... dunno.

     

    Just in case:

    OS: Windows 7 Professional 32-bit

    Ethernet card: Intel(R) 82567LM-3 Gigabit Network Connection

    Previous drivers: 11.something, released in august or sept 2009 (sorry, forgot)

    Current drivers: 15.6.25.0  ( http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18713/eng/PROWin32.exe )

     

     

    Thank you for you help!

    • Proposed as answer by BrettUnixGuy Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:32 PM
    Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:30 PM
  • Okay - my case is solved - installing new drivers and setting link speed to "auto-negotiation" helped.

    Auto-negotiation is setting my link to 100Mbit Full-Duplex. When I was setting that manually my problem, slow transfers locally, was comming back.

     

    No jumbo packet is set, no offset changed, no remote differential compression changed (still ticked).... only as above.

    Maybe in my case NIC drivers werent good with windows 7... dunno.

     

    Just in case:

    OS: Windows 7 Professional 32-bit

    Ethernet card: Intel(R) 82567LM-3 Gigabit Network Connection

    Previous drivers: 11.something, released in august or sept 2009 (sorry, forgot)

    Current drivers: 15.6.25.0  ( http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18713/eng/PROWin32.exe )

     

     

    Thank you for you help!


    I did a similar thing.

    To start with my NIC drivers were already of the latest version.

    Did all the other config changes mentioned; played with jumbo packets, change the remote differential compression, et al, none made any difference.

    I dropped my NIC speed on my Win7 box down to 100Mbit FD. My server I set to 100Mbit Auto-neg. My transfer rates increased, (I tested copying a small bunch of files of various sizes,) from at most 207kbit/sec to over 6MB (I noticed the fastest jumped to around 20MB.) Copy time went from well over 5 mins to less than 15 seconds! Put it back to 1Gbit, slooooow again. I can recreate the issue again and again.

    I've had it @ 100MBit FD for around a week now and I've tested the same copy operation nearly every day and I'm still enjoying the faster transfer rates (not stratospheric I know but still better than before.)

    My equipment: ASUS A8N SLI-Deluxe using the onboard Marvell Yukon NIC (don't remember revision or driver version.)

    Running Win7 Pro 64-bit with SP1 RC1 (has this slow issue ever since Win7 was release, again with SP1 BETA and with SP1 RC1, so issue has not been resolved, except when dropping NIC speeds.) The board has an nForce NIC. I might give that a test and see what gives.

    So much for all of us that have invested into Gbit net tech and now we've had to go backwards. Thanks M$.

    This of course, in my opinion, certainly doesn't prove it is NOT a Win7 issue. On the face of it, looks like Win7 it is, it just don't like GBit speeds, but then...I dunno.

    Is anyone using what IS reconmended/certified for Win7 in the Micro$oft splurdge? What's your story?

    Regards.

     

    Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:11 PM
  • Alright, I'm usually not one to actually post on threads - more of a silent aloof mocker-type myself.  But I ran into this and figured I'd offer a couple options that don't involve the usual tripe of people pretending to know what the frack they are talking about by telling others to update drivers or relating useless drivel that's not germane to the conversation.  Like that Andre or Andrew or whatever the ____ his name was.  I've blocked it from my memory...plus I've been drinking.

    If we want to waggle our nerd schlongs a bit, I've been using windows since before it had a TCP/IP stack, cut my teeth on AIX, had an illicit affair with BSD (Free, not that Open shite), have a degree in computer engineering, had a CCIE written - since lapsed, due to lack of me caring and because most certified peeps I've met are a lot like Ashley or Anthony or whatever.  I'm bitter, cynical and dislike users, so yeah, I'm a nerd.  I also have this nasty tendency to follow the scientific method and believe that correlation does not imply causality, so just because your cat ____ on your keyboard and your speed went up ten percent, doesn't mean you need more cats.

    So, here's the setup:  My brand new (installed all the latest drivers) desktop custom built (all W7 certified hardware) Win7 Ult x64 10.0.0.1/30 <----Cat 5e----> My Dell XPS M1530 Laptop (all up to date as well) Win 7 Ult x86 10.0.0.2/30. That's it.  Removed all other variables.  Before some of you mouth breathers start spouting off:

    The laptop only has a 100meg nic in it, so cat 5e is plenty

    It doesn't need to be a crossover cable because both NICs support auto-X

    Was having faster download speed from the internet via a wireless nic than I was across the 100meg link.  I tried all of the suggestions mention hundreds of time over and over, RCE, turn off autotuning/RSS, etc.  Nothing worked, and some of the ____ on here is actively going to make it worse if not make your network connection completely unworkable. I.e. if you don't have a gigabit switch, hard coding your network card to 1Gbs is only going to add complication as the switch tries to figure out whatever the ____ it is your computer is spouting at it.

    SMB sucks, always has always will, 2.1 is no different.  Fired up an FTPd and gave it a whirl transferring files, ran like a monkey on fire (~10MB/s).  Switched to copying the same files via windows networking 200-400KB/s.  That's the same hard drive, the same everything, just FTP kickin' it old school and SMB being bloaty.  So grab an FTP server for free off the net, I'm not going to give free advertising to any of them, just look one up.  If FTP transfers work quickly and Windows File copy doesn't it's a Windows File Transfer(SMB) problem, not an MTU, or duplex or blah blah blah problem.

    Take a look a the settings of what network type (work/home/public) you're on between whatever devices you're copying between.  When I first set this test up, it didn't like me having a network without a default gateway and was blocking a bunch of stuff (ICMP included) so I was able to do asynchronous pinging - which really grinds my gears.  When I finally cajoled both computers into believing they were on the same network (and fixing the duplicate default gateway entry with an identical metric in the routing table on the desktop box) the Windows file transfer speed picked back up.

    But for now - and the next 60gigs - I'm copying all of my stuff via FTP, like in the old days...the 90s...  Strangely, 60gigs is only going to take a little over an hour and a half now, versus the 2 weeks I was looking at when I started this whole fiasco.

    Though to be fair, Win 7 is perhaps the first MS product since...say...Dos 6.22 that generally works the way I would like it to, when I would like it to.

    Now back to lurking, and if Andrew or Agamemnon or whatever his name was even considers commenting, here's a pre-emptive, "Get bent, moron." for him.

    *hugs and kisses*

    -Cix

     

    • Proposed as answer by Cix_el_syd Friday, November 12, 2010 11:51 AM
    Friday, November 12, 2010 11:51 AM
  • I came here with the same problem and mine was fixed by installing the LAN drivers from my motherboard website.

    There was a windows update that changed the driver a few months ago and I had problems after that (Realtek driver update for Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller 10/25/2010). 

    I had trouble transferring files to other network shares and the motherboard specific drivers solved it for me and it didn't even take a reboot!

    So having the latest drivers provided by Windows Update was the problem for my system.

    • Proposed as answer by greendl Friday, November 12, 2010 5:58 PM
    • Edited by greendl Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:54 PM more specific info
    Friday, November 12, 2010 5:57 PM
  • I never had any kind speed problems with my network.

    In fact, it's much faster after installing Windows 7.

    http://upload.digiex.net/files/uv0nlaenbd2pfmax1jx6.png

    http://upload.digiex.net/files/m00rfm4tf8cr2nd0xdaf.png

    Using realtek Gbit NIC, Dlink and TP-Link switches and Windows 7 home premium on both machines. I never came up to speeds like this when I used XP.

     

    Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:19 AM
  • If the default settings for your network card are not working right then the driver is probably unsuitable. Its less common that network infrastructure fails.

    I have a lot of PCI NICs in the box. They all work fine. Most are 100 megabit, but I have a couple of PCI gigabit ones too.

    We old Acer runs Linux and I use one of the PCI NICs in it as the built-in one is 100 megabit. My network is now also gigabit so the limiting factor is simple disk performance. The old 160 GB disk cannot even saturate 100 megabit.

    So my Seagate 320 can manage 16-18 MB/s copying from another disk that is faster. The Seagate 500 GB disk I have can manage 25-28 MB/s of real performance. The WD 500 GB disk is about the same as the Seagate 500 GB. The speeds are using Windows Explorer move from disk to disk.

    Speeds are the same via USB, SATA and gigabit LAN.

    The board I have is recent so I do not expect any issues, and I do not see any. The old board worked just as well. The Acer machine is older but it works fine.

    Bigger disks are faster with some now over 100 MB/s of performance.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:51 PM
  • Hello All,

    I stumbled across this thread whilst looking for something else and got side tracked....as you do...

     

    I am not bothering to do all of the permutations, but as you can see from above this is not a network issue (120kb/sec one way, but 11.5MB the other? -- give me a break). This is not a network card issue. This issue is CLEARLY isolated to the CSG-WS1/Win7 machine. I have tried all of the ideas posted above and not a single one has worked over the past 8 months.
    
    

    I've seen this situation many times over the years (22 years in the business) and it's almost always been down to duplexing issues.

    I've seen this on buget equipment and high end Cisco and Juniper kit. The basics are that the client PC sets its duplexing to one value whilst the switch sets it's duplexing value to another value. The result is that transfers one way are slow but transferring the other way is fast.

    My recomendation is to manually set the duplex to either half or full duplex on all PC's and on each port on the switch, as long as they all are the same it will be fine. 

    Let me re-itterate, you WILL need to set the duplex setting manually on the switch as well.

     

    This has worked dozens of times for me so hopefully it will help you as well.

     

     

    Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:55 PM
  • Better is duplex to auto and let the NIC and SWITCH negotiate.

    I find bad NICs are the most common problem, less often wire and even less often the SWITCH.

    Linksys are good, I have had problems with D-LINK in the past.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:14 PM
  • Ten gigabytes is a gynormous amount of data !    Not even xp would have been any faster ! ( I know!- I'm using it right now, by choice!)      Counting at a mere 1 bit a second, the megabyte takes twelve days, the gigabyte 32.36 years !  (320 years +, for the amount you are copying !)

    "http://support.microsoft.com/fixit/default.aspx/". This is MICROSOFT'S new, FREE, fully automated, anonymous support portal, which can help users resolve windows and other product issues with a few mouse clicks. BOOKMARK THIS SITE, EVERYBODY !!!
    Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:19 PM
  • I did the following to resolve this issue of very slow network browsing.  Using Win 7 pro 32bit (laptop) - copying files from a Win 2003 server.  Took 3 to 5 minutes just to open the network share when you go to start - run and type \\servername\folder and want to copy files...

    Maybe this will help you guys:

    Open your network card properties (right click on the network icon(bottom right) and select "open nw and share center.  Click on "local area connection" - properties and configure.  Click the Advanced tab.

    Battery mode link detection = NO ENERGY SAVING
    Battery speed settings = Full
    Flow control = tx and rx enabled
    Speed and duplex = auto
    Leave others on default

    In my setup, disabling the battery mode link detection, solved the problem.
    It is also a great idea to always disable any power saving by going to the "power management tab" and deselecting the option there.

    Hope this helps.

    Hi computersupportstar / MannyL,

    Disabling the Energy Star value in the above case solved my problem of slow copying on Windows 7.

    Thanks!

    Utpal.

     

    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:38 AM
  • Dear colleagues, I have similar problem but I found that issue appears only for user whose profile was transferred from Win XP box. For Example. I have Win7 box. If I copy some files under some user who was created on this box, the network speed for copying files is about 1.5Gbit/s. After transfering user profile from WinXP box the speed is downgraded to 20 Kbit/s. The box is the same, network is the same, source and destination of files what are copied is the same. Do you have any idea? All what was mentioned in this forum does not work

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:55 PM
  • As a work around when possible to take the machine offline and a diagnostic tool you can try this: Download Ubuntu. Install it on your PC. No, you do not have to change any partitions, it can install side-by-side on Windows machines. Or just burn it to a disk and boot that. Then boot Ubuntu and try and copy the files that way.

    No, I am not suggesting you switch to Ubuntu or anything, but the above will at least let you identify if you may be having a network or hardware limitation, or if it is an operating system or setting related issue, and only do this if you feel technically capable enough for this. Ubuntu also has diagnostics which will warn you if a hard drive is about to fail. I had that situation once actually.

    I have noticed that on the same hardware under Linux you can get significantly higher transfer rates between two machines (even three four times sometimes). I occasionally use Ubuntu but I like Windows 7 best of Microsoft's operating systems.

    In my experience, copying massive amounts of data on Windows 7 has been improved. Vista was particularly bad in this regard, just Google it and you will see. Check out this post for example: http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx. Note how they also recommend a simple copy tool that may get your around the performance issue. Windows 2000 could also be slow at copying.

    I have read numerous technical explanations of why this is the case with windows, related to network settings (nothing I changed there ever fixed this and it was not an upgrade), or on Vista some buffering I/O system that it uses before copying the buffer etc. In my tests Windows anti-virus did not make much difference (no more than a few percent), but it may depend on your anti virus settings.

    I have also found that using an FTP server under Windows to copy files can --sometimes-- improve performance notably. Like FileZilla server. It also lets you continue if there are any network disruptions or other errors, and will copy without prompting.

    But, yes, I agree with you that Windows should copy much faster than it does. I wish it did as well. I sometimes have to copy or move many gigabytes and I start the copy and check on it a few hours later (even on a gigabit network between two machines sitting next to each other) and just hope it did not set there waiting for me to click "yes" on some system or read-only file.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:04 PM
  • I am having similar problems on slow copying in Windows 7, having just upgraded from Vista (never really used Vista as it was on a spare PC, so not sure how good/bad it was before).

    I have looked at loads of posts in this subject and cannot get to the bottom of the problem, but I have not seen anyone experiencing what I am. Thought about posting a new thread, but hardly seems worth it.

    My spec is: Windows Home 7 Premium

    Desktop PC Intel Core Quad CPU 2.33GHZ

    RAM: 6GB

    32-bit

    Windows Experience Index 5.9

    Three hard drives: 2 internal and one external - ALL on SATA

    I am trying to copy a folder from one drive to another (NB:the folder does not exist on the target drive). Has just taken 10 minutes to copy less than 700mb of files. During the process I got the following error messages (in this order)

    1. Confirm Folder Replace: This destination already contains a folder named xxxxx
    2. Copy File: There is already a file with the same name in this location - this gives all files trying to be copied as conflicts (2,000+)
    3. Another folder replace for 3 (sub) folders

    Once I have okayed the replace/copy and replace options, the process continues.

    The first occurred after approximately 4 minutes. The others at intervals of a coouple of minutes.

    Same thing happened when trying to copy to an external USB hard drive.

    Any thoughts would be appreciated.

    Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:30 PM
  • For those with Intel chipset, check with them and see if they have any updated software available.

    For others Marvel etc put all their drivers on Windows update routinely.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Sunday, January 02, 2011 6:59 PM
  • This is a Windows 7 problem.  I also have recently upgraded all my computers to Win7 (ultimate and Pro) from XP Pro.  ALL the same software.  Now, when saving pdf files from Outlook to my "server" it takes almost 2 minutes to save 4 300kb pdf files that on XP Pro, would take less then 2 seconds.

    I have also noticed a slowdown just moving an e-mail from one e-mail folder to another on the same PC.

    If I can connect to the Internet via the same NIC and Hub at the same speeds, file transfer should also be at the same speed.  Yet with Win 7, there has been significant slowdowns of inter pc transfer speeds.

    Both PC's are top quality MB, Intel quad core 9550 processors, 4gb ddr3 ram, 300 and 600gb WD Velociraptor HDD's.

    Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:56 PM
  • Hello fellow sufferers,

    I have some mighty helpful information for at least some of you, and somewhat helpful info for the rest.

    I'm here after finally upgrading to 7 on a system that used to work beautifully on XP. It's a Q6600 box with a Realtek 8111C integrated NIC. I was having the same problem: File copy over CIFS to a Nexenta file server virtualized over ESXi is extremely slow and ties up the network. You can imagine that having such a convoluted setup led me into having a fairly long debugging session, and I went through network cables, switches, file servers and everything until finally finding this thread and figuring that the problem lies somewhere in the software stack of Windows 7 networking and file copy.

    The symptom is this:

    - Network hangs. Not just the file copy, but all network traffic stops or becomes very unreliable. My IM connections drop, my IRC connection to my irssi proxy cuts out, my music streams hang, web pages stop loading. It is as if most packets are lost or Ack packets are not received. Didn't do any sniffing yet.

    The symptom occurs when:

    - A file or several files is copied TO a remote CIFS share using Windows 7 file copy function.

    The symptom ends when:

    - The file copy errors out or finishes.

    The symptom DOES NOT occur when:

    - The files are copied using FastCopy, WinSCP or pretty much any other method of file transfer that does not involve the Windows 7 file copying routines.
    - Files are copied FROM a CIFS share using Windows file copy routine.
    - (this I didn't test yet, but assume to be true:) NIC is limited to 100mbps

    The symptom was FIXED for me after:

     

    I downgraded my NIC drivers to Version 6.206.0502.2008 as suggested by this post. (direct link to download page)
      I just copied 10 gigs of data to my zpool using regular Windows copy at around 30 MB/s (the zpool was a bit busy otherwise).

    From this I draw the conclusion that:

    - Windows 7 file copy function does something that doesn't play nicely with Realtek's and many other NIC manufacturers' drivers. Some drivers can apparently handle this better, while others are essentially flooded to death by more data than they can handle.

     

    Now, the question is, why hasn't this problem occurred with any other application that uploads to the network? Is the Windows file copy routine doing something in a way that simply isn't very common, or is there a bug in the file copy routine, where it doesn't wait for acknowledgement, but simply overfeeds data into some buffer that clogs up and causes the network driver to surrender? This in part helps explain why different people with different drivers and configurations are finding relief in setting certain options in the driver settings. Perhaps they don't really fix the problem, but simply change the timings or workload inside the driver to make it not reach critical mass.

    My suggestion for Realtek users is to try the old driver and see if it fixes your problem. For people with other NICs, it might be interesting to try older drivers too. It would also be interesting to peek at the network data both at the local computer and at the remote end, just to see if there is an abnormal number of packets on the wire when copying files, and how the situation is different between the old drivers and the up-to-date ones. I might do this if I get really bored some day, but don't hold your breath. Of course, if someone from Microsoft (or Realtek) is investigating this issue and could make these captures have some actual meaning, I'd be much more eager to do the experiments.

    It would be interesting to hear if the aforementioned driver solves or doesn't solve the issue for people using supported Realtek chips.

    • Edited by Gubbe1 Monday, January 10, 2011 3:06 PM Formatting failure
    Monday, January 10, 2011 3:02 PM
  • I have contacted all of the chipmakers over the problems of late and so far nobody has returned my messages.

    I suggest checking out the NIC chipmaker and see if there is a new driver.

     


    Elected! Your votes and support have got me my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Monday, January 10, 2011 9:15 PM
  • Okay - my case is solved - installing new drivers and setting link speed to "auto-negotiation" helped.

    Auto-negotiation is setting my link to 100Mbit Full-Duplex. When I was setting that manually my problem, slow transfers locally, was comming back.

     

    No jumbo packet is set, no offset changed, no remote differential compression changed (still ticked).... only as above.

    Maybe in my case NIC drivers werent good with windows 7... dunno.

     

    Just in case:

    OS: Windows 7 Professional 32-bit

    Ethernet card: Intel(R) 82567LM-3 Gigabit Network Connection

    Previous drivers: 11.something, released in august or sept 2009 (sorry, forgot)

    Current drivers: 15.6.25.0  ( http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18713/eng/PROWin32.exe )

     

     

    Thank you for you help!

    I should have tried this!  My new laptop that I'm moving things to is a windows XP (work still uses XP), but it has a gig network interface.  It was hard coded to 100 mb/full duplex, which matches my switch.  

    Many GB network adapters don't work properly (wrong duplex, etc. which makes network slow) with that hard coded.  I changed mine to "Auto Detect" and that resolved the problem.

    Windows XP machine with GB nic -> Network Connections, right mouse on Local Area Connection -> Properties -> Configure... button -> Advanced Tab -> Property: Link Speed & Duplex,  Value: (change to) Auto Detect

    I don't believe I required a reboot, but you might.

    - Brett

    Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:37 PM
  • Very strange "solution":

     

    100 MBit/sec network

    Windows Server 2003

    XP desktop

    Win7 desktop

    file size: 900MB

     

    In the last days I disabled Remote Differential Compression, rebooted, changed other parameters as proposed, rebooted ... - without

    any success.

     

    I did the following tests:

    Copy Server -> XP (poll from XP desktop) better than 2 min as expected

    Copy Server -> Win7 (poll from Win7 desktop) 18 min

    Win 7 network speed was set to Auto Negotiation, but the display was 10 MBit only, an explanation for the slow transmission

    Next I set the speed to 100MBit manually and - o wonder - the transmission took 1 hour!

    After reboot it was 2 hours 40 min.

    I set the speed back to Auto Negotiation and copied the file within 1 min.

    After reboot it was still 1 min, but what will be tomorrow?

     

    It looks like there was a parameter fixed when network speed was switched forth and back, but I have no idea whitch parameter it is.

    Maybe this will be a hint for further investigation.

     

    Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:21 PM
  • I do not recommend changing network settings as they are not well documented.

    I suggest using a clean install on a test machine and see how that works, if it does then there is some problem with the server or the workstation.

     


    Inaugurated! That you for your support for my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:54 PM
  • Which OS are both PCs running? To get the maximum speed you need SMB2 (included since Vista) on both PCs. When you have 1 XP PC, Windows 7 will use the SMB1 driver and this is much slower.

    All the machines are running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.


    Well there's a lot of posts on this issue.

    Obviously you have clarified that these systems cannot communicate at a tolerable transfer rate.

    Here is my little spit on this...

    1) What is "Network performance" displaying in the Task manager for these large files? While, yes you have a gigabit adapter, the actual data being transfered is rated in Bytes and NOT bits.

    I've never seen a bit-for-bit transfer. On a 100Mbps it's closer to a 10Mbps transfer with error checking and all of the other fun TCP transactions. So when I want to transfer files, it's closer to an estimate of 10% of the transfer speed of the throttle total. If you setup a dual-NIC or aggregate NICs, its a little better but not much. It's only true bonding in Linux.

    2) Are you using Windows HomeGroup?

    In some cases, Homegroup has been known to slow down traffic. Which is why I ended up turning mine off. I saw improvements with Homegroup disabled.

    3) Right-click on Computer> Click Manage > Click Devices > Expand Network Adapters > right-click on your gigabit ethernet adapter and select properties > Goto the Advanced tab and provide the following values for each that exist for your adapter.

    "Auto disable Gigabit (PowerSaving)"
    Flow Control
    Green Ethernet
    Interrupt Moderation
    IPv4 Checksum
    Jumbo Frame
    Large Send Offload (ipv4) - Also get v2 for Ipv4 and Ipv6
    Priority & VLAN
    Transmit Buffers
    Send Buffers
    Speed & Duplex

    4) The Recommendations on this are an "IF" case. Please read thoroughly before getting upset with my recommendation. Take the router out of the equation and verify that the home-based multi-layer network device isn't choking bandwidth between systems. Get a cross over cable and set a static address on 2 systems. Try to send a massive file at that point. It should go at a normal rate. If the crossover cable works fine...  then your switch mesh framework on your multi-layer network device isn't broad enough to support gigabit for all devices on your network. You should consider obtaining a "Gigabit Ethernet Switch" that is a standalone switch to hook up to your hosts and your Multi-layer networking device.

    Considering your need for 9 computers + the link back to your router, I recommend a 12 Port device since there isn't a 10 Port Device. The office with 6 systems can use a simple 8 Port Gigabit switch. This is because that multi-layer network device doesn't have the switching mesh bandwidth that a true unmanaged or managed rackmount switch has.

    Hope these tips help.

    Best Regards,

    Steve K.


    Steve Kline
    Microsoft Certified IT Professional: Server Administrator
    Microsoft Certified Product Specialist
    Microsoft Certified Network Product Specialist
    Red Hat Certified System Administrator
    This posting is "as is" without warranties and confers no rights.
    Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:00 PM
  • I have not seen such performance degradation with UDP or any other protocol. My LAN has all manor of bizarre users on it.

    If your networking infrastructure is slow, try power down and see how that helps. If not then get a new box.

    Bad cables are also another nuisance I see a lot of. Cat 6A is current.

     


    Inaugurated! That you for your support for my 2010 MVP!

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:05 PM
  • I've seen the problem of slow file transfers in a couple of guises on my Win7 Home Premium 64bit Dell XPS 7100 (6 core).  While some slow transfers (even disk to disk) seem to have to do with permissions and/or using Libraries, I read this entire thread (as of Jan 13, 2011) because I was finding EXTREMELY slow file transfers from within Windows Virtual PC (running XP) to/from a network shared folder on the host Win7 OS.  (apparently directly sharing the host file systems in Windows Virtual PC does not work correctly on Win7 Home, where it is technically unsupported).

    I eventually found the problem and solution, and it may have bearing on the network transfer problems some of you are having.  In the case of Virtual PC, the emulated Intel 21140A network interface does not suport "TCP segmentation offloading", and this causes "slow performance and other network problems" if the host NIC has offloading enabled. I found this documented at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888750.

    By disabling the "Large Send Offload" options for my Broadcom Netlink Gigabit Ethernet, the problematic file transfers went from 15 minutes to 2 seconds, and my problem is solved.

    I have no idea if any actual network cards in use have this incompatability, or if it can manifest other than in the Virtual PC virtual network, but it's something else to try.

    If you consider this off the original topic, please forgive me.

    Friday, January 14, 2011 11:46 AM
  • I have read all your posts (including Alfredo posts)

    My network (1Gb/s) and clients:

    A) Router D-Link DIR-655,
    B) PC with Windows 7 32bit,
    C) PC with Windows XP SP3,
    D) NAS QNAP TS-239.

    Transfers were very fast, about 70 MB/s (PC-PC, PC-NAS), until I have upgraded C) to Windows 7. When I was copying files between NAS and PC's everything was fine, but when I tried to copy large files between PC's with Win7 the speed was less than 1 MB/s.

    My solution.

    Disable IPv6 protocol in your network adapter settings . That's all. No other tweaks were required. Now file transfers between PC's with Win7 reaches 70 MB/s.

    Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:50 PM
  • I wonder what the problem is with IP6 relative to your LAN. I use it fine on all clients, but XP does not have it.

    Thanks for clearly posting your network hardware model so its easier to investigate.

     


    My MVP is for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT, and I am getting increasingly good with Visual Studio.

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:00 PM
  • I have noticed that there is only a problem with slow transfer when copying files between PC's with Win7 and IPv6 enabled.

    WinXP <-> Win7 (IPv6 disabled) - OK
    WinXP <-> Win7 (IPv6 enabled) - OK
    Win7 (IPv6 disabled) <-> Win7 (IPv6 enabled) - OK
    Win7 (IPv6 disabled) <-> Win7 (IPv6 disabled) - OK
    Win7 (IPv6 enabled) <-> Win7 (IPv6 enabled) - FAIL

    I have to check what will happend when I enable IPv6 on my NAS and try to copy files to PC with Win7 with enabled IPv6.

    Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:07 PM
  • I have been running a network of Windows XP computers for the last 5 years without any network problems.

    I've recently purchased a new computer with windows 7 (64 bit)

    I was expecting it to be faster than my old computers, but it is much slower copying files across the network.

    Copying any files between any windows XP computers on the network works fine at about 8Mbytes/sec. or about 80% utilisation.
    I can copy files from any windows XP computer to my windows 7 computer at about 8Mbytes/sec.
    However, copying the same files from windows 7 to windows XP transfers at about 200kbytes/sec. (about 2% utilization)

    It does not make any difference wheter the file transfer is initiated from a windows XP or a windows 7 PC, it is the direction of copy that makes the differernce.

    So there must be a problem with file copying in windows 7, or at least some incompatibility with all my other computers on the network.
    So far I have tried:

    Disabled RDC
    Updating to the latest network card drivers.
    Disable TCP AutoTuning and Receive Side Scaling.
    Turn off the Windows 7 Homegroup
    Dissable IPv6.
    Set Speed and duplex to 100Mbps full duplex manually
    Set the SMB buffer size to various values.
    Turned off ALL Task Offload settings on the network adapter.
    (My network card does not have a Jumbo frame setting)

    I can get file copying to work fine both ways by using a cross over cable.
    When I connect the crossover cable to the windows 7 computer, it makes the connection an "unidentified public network" in Network and sharing centre.
    I then click on the network (the bench symbol) select turn on discovery and file sharing, and make it a private network.
    Now file copying both ways will work just fine, but as soon as I connect the two computers back on the network, the problem is back.

    Obviously using a crossover cable is not a solution, as I can only connect two computers, but does anyone have any idea why that works, but copying through a switch does not. I have checked that my switch is windows 7 certified.

    I've also used Microsoft network monitor 3.4 to take a network trace copying a 4MB file.Copying from windows XP to windows 7 takes less than one second. Copying the same file from windows 7 to windows XP takes 25 seconds. Anyone know how to analyze the trace ?

    Any other suggestions also welcome.

    Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:02 PM
  • Done some more testing on my network and have discovered something interesting:

    I've now tried 3 different 100Mb switches and hubs, all have the same problem, ie only transfereing data from Windows 7 to windows XP at about 0.2Mbytes/sec.

    I then tried 2 different 10Mb hubs, and with a 10Mb hub it transferes at just over 1.1 MBytes/s which is almost 100% utilisation !

    So now I've gone back to my 100Mb switch, but set the windows 7 computer's network card to 10Mb, and it works fine at 1.1MBytes/s.

    (If I set the network card to 100Mb or auto, it drops down to 0.2Mbytes/s. again)

    It's not a great solution, but it's 5 times faster than what I was getting.

     

     

    Friday, January 28, 2011 11:16 AM
  • Try using a more modern 1 gigabit switch and see if that works any better.

    Evidence I see is for improper cables which are causing the network speed to throttle back.

     


    My MVP is for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT, and I am getting increasingly good with Visual Studio.

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Friday, January 28, 2011 10:06 PM
  • This may sound like a weird fix, but I was having what seems like a similar issue but only when trying to transfer files on my win 7 pro x64 machine to a sharepoint using explorer view.  The following fixed the issue:

    IE > Tools > Internet Options > Connections > LAN Settings> Uncheck "Automatically Detect Settings"

    Hope this works for someone here.

    Friday, January 28, 2011 10:44 PM
  • I was having similar slow copies as shown.....would start out pretty well....get about half way done and virtually stop, then finally pick up again and finish.  Trying to copy 5.66MB in 60 files from a homegroup share. 

    The problem for me turned out to be MS Security Essentials (latest version, but had similar problems on the previous version).   Turn off Real Time Protection on the receiving system, specifically the 'Monitor file and program activity on your computer', and the copy happens so fast I can barely see the status box. 

    Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:18 AM
  • There could have been virus, spyware in the system, otherwise it don't take much time to copy the files.Try cleaning your system by running anti- virus anti spyware software.Then try copy the files from network.
    Saturday, February 19, 2011 5:24 AM
  • It don't take much time to copy or migrate the files from windows 7 pc. There could have been virus, spyware in the system.Try removing the viruses and spywares through anti virus and anti spyware programs if you have on your computer.Try copy and migrate the files now.
    Saturday, February 19, 2011 5:30 AM
  • No, no virus or spyware.....I did however isolate it to a single file that kills MSE when it tries to scan it....at least on an N450 powered Netbook.   It was a utility to toggle hidden file display on and off via hotkey, about 300KB in size.    When it scans that file during the copy, CPU utilization goes to 100% for about 45 sec and everything comes to a halt.  MSE never flags it as a problem.  Take that out of the copy set, and back to normal.
    Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:09 AM
  • I hope I'm wrong, but with SP1 the problem seems to be even worse.

    My situation: Windows 7 x64, fast SATA disks, fast workstation, fast network.

    Every copy is incredibly slow: 300 to 500 KB/sec is NOT acceptable. For sure it is not a network issue: same speed when copying a local directory to a Compact Flash high speed memory card. Sometimes i reach 1,1-1,3 MB/sec, but this happens only for some instants in the copy process.

    Another thing to point out: if you have many files, it takes more time to calculate the time needed to copy files than really copying them.

    About 3 months ago I started copying files using 7-Zip also for file where compression is not usefule: it takes less time to compress a bunch of jpeg files and copying the result (a single file) to the destination than copy the directory directly to the destination: sizes are almost equal (99% similar). Even if 7-Zip needs the time to compress, it is faster to copy than a direct copy.


    Andrea Antonangeli --- Octet - Ingegneria dei Sistemi - S.r.l. --- Milano (Italy) --- octet.it
    Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:21 PM
  • Small files are the slowest. Keep in mind malware tools will also slow things down.

    I use 7-zip to backup folders with as it does the job fine.

    7-zip can simply store files with no compression, like the old tar program found on Linux

    select the option when making a new archive

     


    My MVP is for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT, and I am getting increasingly good with Visual Studio.

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:29 PM
  • Hi

    On my company network, one of the clients is using Windows 7 and had problems copying file to our server (Windows 2003 R2 Standard Edition).
    Transfers were extremely slow and would usualy freeze.
    All other clients, using Windows XP, had no problem.

    I searched for a solution on these forums and tried all the suggestions, none of them worked (maybe my problem was different?)

    Today I tried the following:
    In the advanced properties of the network adapter (here a Realtek device), I changed the parameter "Link and Duplex speed" from "automatic" to "100Mbits/s full duplex" and it solved the problems, transfer speeds are back to normal.

    I hope this will help some of you.

     

    Tuesday, March 01, 2011 5:13 PM
  • I am aware that some routers may have defective firmware. My own WRT54G works better with 3rd party software that has working plug and play. Given hard evidence that the firmware is defective suggests this may be more widespread.

    My MVP is for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT, and I am getting increasingly good with Visual Studio.

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Tuesday, March 01, 2011 6:59 PM
  • It's not the network card, it's not the router, it is this horrible operating system.   IMO.. and I'm going through this same madness of being unable to copy large files across from an external hard drive to a new Windows 7 machine through USB.

    What insanity, we wait for 15 years to get processors and hardware components up to a level of technology and speed only to be dreamed of in the past, and what does Microsoft do?

    They create an OS that tries to look like a Mac, wants to be a media center while catering to the DRM lobby over the benefits of a machine that can function fully, it gives precedence to animation and ridiculous window effects to the degree it can't operate like a machine 10 years ago running XP.

    4 hours later, I too am trying to get 10gb of data from one drive to another with numerous retries and reboots because of crashing 2/3's of the way through.  Must be done folder by folder with patient waiting inbetween.

    I want to cry, I want to scream, I want most of all to have someone to yell at in Redmond and ask wtf were you people thinking???

    A very telling aspect of this I learned recently while watching a conference where many teams within MS were needed re: analysing the stuxnet virus.. There are quite a few teams in MS who REFUSE to give up XP as well.

    Where do we go from here?  What are we going to do if XP gets retired.  The future looks so bleak indeed, thanks to the idiots at MS who lost the plot big time with the rollout of Vista and Win 7.  Unbelievable..

     

     

    Friday, March 04, 2011 2:28 PM
  • Hi

    On my company network, one of the clients is using Windows 7 and had problems copying file to our server (Windows 2003 R2 Standard Edition).
    Transfers were extremely slow and would usualy freeze.
    All other clients, using Windows XP, had no problem.

    I searched for a solution on these forums and tried all the suggestions, none of them worked (maybe my problem was different?)

    Today I tried the following:
    In the advanced properties of the network adapter (here a Realtek device), I changed the parameter "Link and Duplex speed" from "automatic" to "100Mbits/s full duplex" and it solved the problems, transfer speeds are back to normal.

    I hope this will help some of you.

     

    LOL!

    I tried your solution and I got a "wonderful" 3.82 KB/second copy speed !!!

    I'll try again after a reboot, but for the moment I think this **** depends on the driver or the network adapter you have. I have a Broadcom and this solution doesn't work AT ALL for me ;)

     


    Andrea Antonangeli --- Octet - Ingegneria dei Sistemi - S.r.l. --- Milano (Italy) --- octet.it
    Friday, March 04, 2011 5:31 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

     

    You may check if there is any firmware update for your hub.

     

    In addition, I also would like to suggest you disable IPv6 and perform the following steps to check the issue.

     

    Configure the network card

    ==============

    1. Click the Start Button, type "devmgmt.msc" (without quotation marks) in the Start Search box and press Enter.

    2. Double click to expand "Network Adaptors".

    3. Right click your network card and click Properties.

    4. Click Advance tab. High light Speed & Duplex

    5. If you would like to use the full functionality, please set the Value to the highest Full.

    6. Click OK.

     

    Good luck!


    Arthur Li - MSFT


    Funny, but alot of people don't know about this simple step that even improves thier Internet Speeds ??  I've been doing this for years, going into the properties of the NIC, then looking on the 2nd tab, for "Speed & Duplex" on Win7 & similar on XP, and change the 'Auto Negotiate' to "100 Mbps Full Duplex".  When you are on 'Half Duplex', you can "talk" -or- "receive".  But, on 'Full Duplex' you can talk and receive at the same time, not having to wait for the other to finish, before it changes direction.. and nano seconds do add up.  Even if you think this is NOT your answer, doing this will improve your performance through the NIC.  Doing this simple 1 minute procedure will make you a hero in a Corporate world, and one less thing they can complain about, as far as access speeds.

     


    Respectfully, Toby White-Beebe
    Friday, March 04, 2011 9:40 PM
  • Hi MannyL,

     

    You may check if there is any firmware update for your hub.

     

    In addition, I also would like to suggest you disable IPv6 and perform the following steps to check the issue.

     

    Configure the network card

    ==============

    1. Click the Start Button, type "devmgmt.msc" (without quotation marks) in the Start Search box and press Enter.

    2. Double click to expand "Network Adaptors".

    3. Right click your network card and click Properties.

    4. Click Advance tab. High light Speed & Duplex

    5. If you would like to use the full functionality, please set the Value to the highest Full.

    6. Click OK.

     

    Good luck!


    Arthur Li - MSFT


    Funny, but alot of people don't know about this simple step that even improves thier Internet Speeds ??  I've been doing this for years, going into the properties of the NIC, then looking on the 2nd tab, for "Speed & Duplex" on Win7 & similar on XP, and change the 'Auto Negotiate' to "100 Mbps Full Duplex".  When you are on 'Half Duplex', you can "talk" -or- "receive".  But, on 'Full Duplex' you can talk and receive at the same time, not having to wait for the other to finish, before it changes direction.. and nano seconds do add up.  Even if you think this is NOT your answer, doing this will improve your performance through the NIC.  Doing this simple 1 minute procedure will make you a hero in a Corporate world, and one less thing they can complain about, as far as access speeds.

     


    Respectfully, Toby White-Beebe


    YOu know your right I just recalled back in the days of win 95 and 98 I had to make that change too.  And thanks to you reminging me I get between 8 and 9 Mb/Second now copying all the CD ISO files for Fedora Core 14 and it does not time out anymore. 

     

    Thanks for the help, everyone as I tried all the sugestions except the guy talking about HD speeds,  All m systems use 7200RPM SATA drives except my server which uses 10K2 RPM SCSI drives.  But it was a good educational experence, so I guess thanks to him too.  Now I think MS need to look at this problem but I 'm betting they already know about it and plan to release it in the Next version of Windows Hahaha

     

     

    Robert

    Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:42 PM
  • I had been suffering from this problem ever since i got a windows 7 machine, rendering accessing my Netgear ReadyNas useless from my windows 7 machine, via gigabit switch.

    I too am getting fast transmission from XP to NAS, but XP to Win7 or Win7-NAS large iso files over 1Gb never complete i give up.

    I tried all the tips suggesting. After reading this thread i tried to force my network to 100Mb/s.

    Control Panel/Network and Internet/Network Connection/Local Area Connection/Properties/Configure/Advanced/Speed and Duplex

    Set value to 100 Mb FullDuplex.

    This is the only thing that enabled me to finish copying a 1.5Gb file, ok it was 11.3Mbs and took two minutes. 

    At least i can use my NAS now from the windows 7.

    Until window come up with a fix(which it looks like they wont), i have to use 100mbs.

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:20 AM
  • If performance continues to be at issue, moving to a faster network is a good choice

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:54 PM
  • Does it make a difference if you copy from a drive other than C:?

     

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:41 PM
  •  

    Assuming you are talking HDDs on your own PC vs across a network to a NAS drive ??  A lot of variables kick the performance down, including Apple/MAC products using the Apple Talk protocol, NetBEUI, IPX, numbers of Users doing their own thing ( basically bandwidth available ).. all of the slower protocols, ask way too many questions, trying to find their way to their final destination.  Full, freestanding MFC Copier/Printer/Fax machines which automatically are defaulted to ALL noisy transport protocols until they are turned off.

    If all drives are on your PC, corded with some current technology standard, it should make no noticeable difference, if all drives are equal -EXCEPT- if you are trying to transfer files between one partition to another, but those should still be relatively quick, though I have noticed times when things slowed down for me, just because of the shear # of files that it was moving.  BUT, if you have, as an example, (2) 250gb IDE drives on the the same cable ( channel 0 or 1 ), yes it will slow down because what you're experiencing is the equivalent to the Half Duplex on a NIC card.. Read Drive 1 > out to the I/O Controller > then Write back to Drive 2.  BUT, if you split your IDE drives onto separate channels, like the one that has your CD/DVD Burner on it.. you will notice a remarkable improvement in the performance, because you'll have the equivalent to streaming transfers, even between 7200 rpm drives.  SATA's have eliminated this issue by utilizing single end connectors and drive channels, for each drive used. ( cannot plug to devices onto 1 SATA cable ).  Intel, by design, has allowed for up to 50 SATA channels to be addressed by the newer BIOS configurations.  To address all of them, only requires an updated driver to address them all.

    Respectfully,

    Toby White-Beebe



    Respectfully, Toby White-Beebe
    Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:37 AM
  • Hi all.

    I've experienced the same problem with Windows 7.

    I've got a cleaner installation, which proves, that Windows 7 actually is capable of copying files fast, but only when receiving:

     

    I've got a Latitude 810 with XP SP3 and 1 GB Broadcom card.

    That's connected with a Lenovo T510i with Windows 7 x64 SP1 and Intel 1 GB card via a cable (no router or switch to blame it on).

    When copying a file of about 1 gigabyte from the Windows 7 to the XP machine via Explorer, this takes over 3 minutes both when "pushed" from Windows 7 and "pulled" from XP.

    Copying from XP to Windows 7 takes about 10 seconds both when "pushed" from XP and "pulled" from Windows 7 (and is actually faster than copying the file from one location to another on the XP machine itself - a little weird).

    This proves that something strange's going on with Windows 7.

    Long live this thread and hopefully somebody can use this to point us in the right direction.

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:41 PM
  • I recently procured a netbook with Windows 7 on it and I installed a range of programs off my server fine.

    My machine has wireless g and it was operating fine at full speed and according to my router the signal was 70% which tells me everything is fine.

    I copied a few manuals over as well and once again no problem.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:12 PM
  • Hi Vegan.

     

    I'm afraid I don't know if your latest post is supposed to be an answer to mine.

    What I'm trying to say is, that copying TO Windows 7 works just dandy, but it's copying FROM Windows 7 that doesn't work. Moreover it seems like the speed is slowing dramatically during the copying. Has to do with a software problem or setup - I'm still not wiser.

    Wireless isn't an option for me, since I'm working for our national Army with classified projects. Besides, wireless gives all kinds of other uncertainties with blocking of the signal etc.

     

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:50 PM
  • Is AES not secure enough for you needs?

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:51 PM
  • Hi Vegan.

    I don't know AES, but Tempest approved equipment is a must, so cable is what I'm forced to use.

    But it's not a question of other software. And as I think I've shown, it's not about equipment either, since I only use a cable between my 2 PC's.

    It's a question about why copying FROM Windows 7 is so slow. I don't know if it's also slow between Windows 7 PC's, but I know it is from Windows 7 to XP.

    I've seen a lot of your posts - apparently you don't seem to have the problems everybody else are experiencing, so maybe it's not you, who should answer this question (no offense).

     

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 7:03 PM
  • Advanced Encryption Standard replaced the older DES (Data Encryption Standard) and its sufficient to protect data up to Secret in the US.

    If you require more security than Secret then its possible some encryption software is slowing down the machines transfers.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:19 PM
  • This is a test setup and for other use. No encryption software is installed on these 2 machines.

    The description in my first post is still valid. Please don't make problems, where there aren't any. There's an error in Windows 7, and we need to find it.

    If you really want to contribute, please try connecting 2 machines via a cable, one with XP SP3 and one with Windows 7 SP1 - you'll see the problem then, and I'll be more than glad if you can come up with a solution.

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:31 PM
  • OK what is the manufacturer of the hardwire ethernet controller?

    You need a router to interconnect 2 machines. I assume that device is present and working fine.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:34 PM
  • As described in my first post, the XP machine has a 1 GB Broadcom controller and the Windows 7 machine a 1 GB Intel controller.

    But: from the many posts on this forum I take it it's not related to any special brand. Could be a 1 GB controller issue though, but as this is the current standard, it's an error, which Microsoft should address. I've been looking for a place to post directly to them, but without luck.

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:40 PM
  • Given you are not the OP that is why I asked details as it is too time consuming to read this who thread closely.

    Broadcom is a respectable maker of networking components and Intel makes fairly good gear too.

    What are you using for a router?

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:42 PM
  • William I agree, have tried to copy simple external drive though USB2 interface PATA drive, the slowness made transfer of many Gb's of folders an all day event.  With numerous crashes inbetween.  Try taking two large folders with numerous large photos, so the folders sizes are over 9 Gb's each.  Try dropping them onto the desktop from the external drive window.

    This is the only OS I've seen display this hiccup and I believe it is a flaw in the OS somewhere.

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:47 PM
  • No router. Directly connected with a normal network cable. I've tried a crossover cable too with no difference.

    The IP of the XP machine is set to 192.168.1.1 and the other to 192.168.1.2. subnet mask: 255.255.255.0

    William

     

    PS: By clicking my user profile you'll see my posts listed - it's faster than going thru all posts.

     

     

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:50 PM
  • Buy a router, one with gigabit ports and use standard CAT 6A cables (CAT 5 will work for short distances) and you shoud be fine.

     

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:52 PM
  • Hi Vegan.

     

    Thanks for your advices.

    Anybody else?

     

    William

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:57 PM
  • A router is under $100 so what is the problem?

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:58 PM
  • Hi Tomi01.

     

    Yeah, I did notice it's quite slow on USB devices too. But for me copying from/to USB devices is a one-time-only thing. What I'm actually trying to achieve is this:

    I've developed a small but efficient database system (like Access, SQL Server but with limited functions). This involves a server-COM+ control which is to reside on the server with the database. Right now I'm testing the speed, and therefore copying a big file is only a symptom that has to be eliminated. I need highest possible speed both ways.

    I know it's not an answer to your problem, just an explanation why I can't just use a router as Vegan suggests (and always does).

    I think the cable-to-cable solution should be the fastest and cleanest possible solution. Microsoft themselves have instructions on how to set up a cable-to-cable connection. After that is brought to work, I'll try with some of my routers - not before.

    We really need an answer, don't we?

    If anybody can provide me with a link to Microsoft for reporting, I'd be much obliged.

    William

    • Edited by TechWill28 Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:53 PM
    Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:46 PM
  • Some USB flash memory sticks, like on my 4GB sticks is very slow. Others by comparison are much faster.

    USB hard disks are generally OK, I have 2 of those

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:51 PM
  • What tells me that it is part of the OS is that I can not drag numerous folders to the desktop and the system be able to handle the copying.  You can drop a number of folders with 8gb or more of data on a system with Mac OS X and Win XP, even with Vista I haven't seen this kind of problem.  I'm not a software engineer, but logic tells me that if I see this problem at this level, then it is in the system design.  (see my above rant).

    edit to add:  Microsoft's approach to creating an OS platform has succeeded in making Moore's law obsolete.

     

     

    Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:07 AM
  • I have read 90% of the post here. I don’t know if this will help or not, i run 170 pc' with Win 7 X64 Entp. and 12 Imac with 10.5 os, Win 2003 server with 2 network sheared drives, I think it mite be a user or a GPO problem, if i log in as one of the users it some times takes me 25 min to copy a 5 meg file, but if i log in under Administrator or someone with more privileges than the standard user it takes 5 sec. So i have not figured this out why only on some users can copy faster than others. But maybe someone here can figure this out. Thank you Henry
    Monday, March 14, 2011 7:23 AM
  • Hi Henry.

    I run as administrator on both PCs and the problem is the same if I initiate the copy from Windows 7 or XP - it's still from Windows 7 to XP, that doesn't work.

    Anybody tried a copy between two XP machines and two Windows 7 machines?

    This could help narrowing in on the problem.

    William

    Monday, March 14, 2011 9:06 AM
  • As a computer consultant for many years now, I've copied large data folders and files through every OS that is commonly used.  I have never seen an OS choke before the way Win 7 is doing when trying to move several folders with large amounts of data at once over from an external source.   

    Monday, March 14, 2011 9:34 AM
  • Hi Tomi01.

    I'm an IT consultant too and have used a lot of different hard/software during the years.

    But I'm new on Windows 7, since my customers use XP, so I've only got 1 PC with Windows 7.

    Many people say that there's not a problem when copying between XP PCs.

    I've seen many report problems when copying from Windows 7 to XP.

    But: Is this the same when copying between 2 Windows 7 PCs? Is there a difference when connected through Homegroup or Workgroup?

    William

    Monday, March 14, 2011 12:10 PM
  • An IT friend of mine referred me to this thread as I'm having the same issue as others.  I read through every post in this thread as I am in desperation mode after being plagued by this issue since May/June of last year.  Listed below are the specs of the machines and network.  In addition to the machines discussed, I have several other computers/devices connected through the network either hardlined or wireless as follows:  FreeNAS server (hardlined), old Acer laptop running MCE (wireless), HDHomeRun (hardlined), Media Extender (hardlined), iPad (wireless) and Wii (wireless).

    Machines:

    Win7 box:  Win7 Home 64-bit SP1, Asus P7P55D EVO MB, Core i7-860, 8gb G. Skill DDR-1600 memory, 3 WD 640g Blacks Raid-0, 2 XFX 275GTX Nvidia VC's, built-in Realtek 8112L / 8110SC gigabit LAN

    XP box:  WinXP Pro 32-bit SP3, Intel 875pbz MB, 3.0ghz P4, 1gb Kingston memory, WD 36gb Raptor 10k RPM (OS HDD), Seagate 500gb IDE (multimedia HDD), Seagate 1tb SATA (TV recording HDD), ATI 9800Pro VC, built-in Intel gigabit LAN

    Network:

    Fully wired Cat-5e network running DHCP server through an Actiontec MI424WR Verizon FIOS router and uplinked to a Netgear GS108, unmanaged gigabit switch, all file sharing options enabled, passwords disabled with administrator log-ins.

    Issue:

    From the Win7 machine, I am unable to copy large files across the network to the XP box.   I've tried moving smaller files and they seem to copy across the network without issue.  Unfortunately the size of the file causing the issue is not consistent each time and therefore I haven't been able to pinpoint a size threshold when the copy fails.  For instance, the test file I have been using is a folder that consists of 139 files for a total of 6.5gb.  When I try to copy the entire 6.5gb folder from Win7 to XP the copy window shows "calculating" and after a minute or so returns the following error:

    "There is a problem accessing \\Server\e.  Make sure you are connected to the network and try again."  The error window gives me the options to "Try Again", "Skip" or "Cancel"

    Before this error message appears and during the time the copy window shows “calculating” I cannot access any network drives.  If I click the “try again” button on the error message, the error window continues to pop up over and over.  If I click “skip”, it tries to skip the file and continue copying, but returns the same error within a few seconds.  After I click “cancel”, I navigate to the XP box and can see that SOME of the 139 files were copied.  The files that successfully copied are all <200kb.  Only those files up to the first large file (>1gb) are copied.  The error message is produced once copying of the first large file is attempted.  If I try to move only the 1gb file by itself, it appears to start copying (albeit at a painful 10-13kb/sec) and then stops shortly into it.  Interestingly enough, I tried copying another folder of many large music files (200mb in total) and it successfully copied the first 5 songs of one able (~5-8mb each) before it stopped copying and returned the same error message.  If I pull files from the XP box to the Win 7 box (regardless of file size or number of files in the folder), I have no problems and transfer speeds are ~50mb/sec!

    Troubleshooting:

    I've tried all of the suggestions in this thread as well as others I've found on the net and have not found a solution/fix.  I have been using the same test file for which is a folder consisting of 139 files for a total of 6.5gb.  Below is a list of the troubleshooting items I've completed so far.

    1.  Replace Cat5e cables on Win7 and XP boxes - no improvement

    2.  Disconnect all cables from switch except for Win7 and XP – no improvement

    3.  Copy file to another HDD on XP box – no improvement

    4.  Remove all cables from switch (including Win7 and XP) and reconnect just Win7 and XP, forcing router to reassign IP addresses – no improvement

    5.  Changed ports on switch for both Win7 and XP – no improvement

    6.  Turn off antivirus on both machines – no improvement

    7.  Plug only Win7 and XP box into Actiontec router, taking switch out of equation – no improvement

    8.  Update Win7 and XP NIC drivers to latest available – no improvement

    9.  Force full duplex, 1000 speed on both machines – no improvement

    10.  Install CableNut software on XP box to optimize Stack settings – no improvement

    11.  Remove router uplink from switch; remove all Cat5e cables from switch except for Win7 and XP; set static IP’s in both machines – no improvement

    12.  Disable auto tuning and receive side scaling on Win7 box – no improvement

    13.  Turn off Remote Differential Compression on Win7 box – no improvement

    14.  Install 8gb new memory, certified compatible; ran MemTest on each stick and again with all 8gbs installed and no errors reported – no improvement

    15.  Updated to latest MB Bios – no improvement

    16.  Ran copy command in DOS prompt – no improvement

    17.  Disabled Large Send Offload in NIC properties – no improvement

    18.  Unchecked IPv6 in network properties – no improvement

    19.  Confirmed not on “homegroup” and disabled feature altogether – no improvement

    20.  Turned off all power save options related to NIC on both machines – no improvement

    21.  Formatted both Win7 and XP and did clean reinstall of operating systems and bare essential drivers – no improvement.

    22.  Uninstalled all Win7 critical updates – no improvement.

    23.  Tested while machines running in Safe Mode w/networking – THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING!!!  XP to Win7 transfer rates were consistent at ~50mb/sec.  What’s interesting is the Win7 to XP transfer rates as illustrated below.

                a.         Both machines in safe mode:  ~15mb/sec, 10-15% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).

                b.         XP safe mode and Win7 normal operating mode:  ~22mb/sec, 18-20% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).  Slightly better performance but still nowhere near speed copying in the opposite direction.

                c.          Win7 safe mode and XP normal operating mode:  7-8mb/sec, 6-7% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).

                d.         Both machines in normal operating mode:  Same issue as stated above and only small files are copied.

    I’m hoping someone here might be able to make heads/tails of the safe mode tests and what a logical next step might be.  I've searched the internet and found plenty of posts from other Win7 users being unable to copy large files to XP across a network, but haven't found a real solution or explanation of what is causing the problem.  I've also read somewhere the problem may be an issue in networking a 64-bit and 32-bit operating system together.  Anyone have thoughts/comments on that theory?  I'm looking forward to Microsoft finally admitting there is an issue and offering a solution!!!! 

    Monday, March 14, 2011 6:56 PM
  • OK I am assuming you want to share like the old days of Windows for Workgroups?

     

    http://www.windows-it.tk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5

     

    Now with the Guest account enabled your shared will be fully visible and usable.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    Remote Assistance is available for a fee.

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Monday, March 14, 2011 6:59 PM
  • OK I am assuming you want to share like the old days of Windows for Workgroups?

     

    http://www.windows-it.tk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5

     

    Now with the Guest account enabled your shared will be fully visible and usable.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    Remote Assistance is available for a fee.

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews


    Thanks, although I'm not sure exactly how this helps my problem as posted.  I have all pc's networked together on the same WorkGroup and can view/access all drives.  Am I missing something within your post that addresses the Win7 to XP copying issues?
    Monday, March 14, 2011 7:24 PM
  • Run the script, it will likely perk up performance big time

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    Remote Assistance is available for a fee.

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Monday, March 14, 2011 7:31 PM
  • Was anyone around when OS 7 was born out at Apple?  After having gone through and survived that evolution, (which almost did Apple in), I'm cynical enough to not try everything MannyL did, and wouldn't even begin to try to figure out what is wrong with the OS.  There isn't one team at Redmond that thoroughly understands the workings of the whole OS across the board under the hood at every level.  How can any of us even begin to fathom why Windows 7 is doing this?

    What is obvious to me is that it is doing this when I have a 64Bit machine with Windows 7 and using an external drive over USB2.  This is a problem with the system, not unlike the wrong direction taken by Apple at one time.  When Microsoft gets its priorities right again, and gives the market a lean and mean OS that can optimise the power of hardware we have now, not use it as a crutch for its media center and DRM priorities, they will be able to resolve this problem.

    Until then, it is a matter of getting them to address this issue publicly.  But this sure reminds me of the old OS 7 days on a Mac.  And we haven't even begun to address CPU chipsets.   It could be at that point where these problems begin.  One person I know using AMD Dual Core is not seeing the copying issue as badly as we have, but still unusual responses when trying to copy multiple folders at once.

     

    • Edited by tomi01 Monday, March 14, 2011 8:08 PM
    Monday, March 14, 2011 8:03 PM
  • Driver issues keep people from using Apple hardware with Windows generally.

    Nothing works. I have seen it myself.

    Apple is pretty much a closed system. Still they can connect to a server fine.

     


    My MVP is for the Windows Desktop Experience, i.e. Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 IT

    Remote Assistance is available for a fee.

    I am best with C++ and I am learning C# using Visual Studio 2010

    Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews

    Monday, March 14, 2011 8:06 PM
  • Vegan you are not addressing the issues we are talking about, instead diluting the essence of our discussion with off the cuff remarks that have nothing to do with reality or this problem.

     

    Monday, March 14, 2011 8:17 PM
  • I will stir the pot a little bit and add that if you put XP on a MacBook Pro, you couldn't ask for a sweeter and more stable system and you can copy multiple high data folders across from external devices or through a network without the machine crashing.... I dread the day I'm asked to put Win 7 in a Mac..
    Monday, March 14, 2011 8:25 PM
  • This problem is probably related to DRM and Tilt bits and possibly the cpu, just my guess:

    But here is a thread with a whole 9 pages of similiar complaints and they have nailed down the OS as I have as the culprit.  Not to mention the misdirection of MS.

    http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-280142-2652967

    Monday, March 14, 2011 8:57 PM
  • I guess you could call this a rant or whatever but I ave had problems with win7 Home Premium and slow copying too. So here is what I did. All PC set with Static non Routing IPs 192.168.1 to .3 No internet connection no routers Computer 1 is a Dell GX260 with 768Meg of Memmory and a 120 GB HD rinning the DEll OEM of win XP Pro Computer 2 is a custom Job Asus Striker Extreme with 160GB SATA HD and a 750GB SATA Storage drive running Win7 home Premium 32bit 2ghz Intel Dual Core Computer 3 Sony Viao Laptop Windows 7 Home Premium Network is all Cat 5 with a 5 port Dlink Switch First copying a video file from Computer 1 to computer 2 170Mb File with Windows Explorer Copy Timed out Network Second copy sam file from Computer 2 to computer 3 170Mb File with Windows Explorer Copy took 35 Minutes but did not time out Third Copy same file from Computer 3 to Computer 1 with Windows Explorer Copy Timed out and failed Now for what I expected Remover Boot Drive from Computer 2 and replace with Windows XP Pro SP3 copied to Computer 1 Copy took about 5 minutes to complete Copied same file and included 1 more video file same 170Mb to Wifes PC Dell Dimension 4600 with Win XP Pro and computer 1 took about 8 minutes Had Wife Copy file back to computer 2 with win XP pro at same time as copying another 170Mb File to Computer 2 from computer 1 same amount of time no changes. Restored Computer 2 to Win 7 Home Premium original Boot Drive and attempted to same copy procedure above Copy timed out and failed unknown est. time of completion. Tried to change Switch out with a Cisco 2950c Switch but no results as I am not done configuring managed switch tried changing the NIC Speed from auto sensing from auto sensing to 100mb Full Duplex saw great improvment in copying same file unfortunatly, every so offten I loose the ability to see network workgroup. My personal feeling is there is a serious flaw in how Win 7 handels copying files over intranet connections. as for Bit Torrent copying I do not see any slowing of download times as just recently on computer 2 with Win 7 torrent downloaded Fedora Core CD set with a minimal amount of time. The Proble is in the OS and Microsoft Needs to take responsibility and correct this problem as soon as possible
    Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:24 AM
  • Hi Jasmith.

    I see you've done a thorough job in locating the problem. I've tried most of what you did apart from reinstalling os. And I don't use a router. Firewall is disabled since these machines are not going to be on the internet or use wireless.

    My XP box is 5 years and my Windows 7 box couple of months, so logic tells me Windows 7 box should be able to 'understand' the XP adapter. On the other hand people say XP to XP works great and Windows 7 to Windows 7 does not. This tells me the error is in Windows 7.

    I get close to 1 Gbps when copying from XP to Windows 7 but less than 50 Mbps the other direction. If I choose to show Details from the copy-dialog it's obvious that the speed goes up and down a lot. This suggests it's some kind of software-issue maybe with the packets not being received in the right order. Then I found this post and tried most of it without luck:

    http://www.speedguide.net/articles/windows-7-vista-2008-tweaks-2574

    So: what's left to do? Shouldn't it be possible to have one or more skilled persons at Microsoft to read through this thread and look into it?

    It's not fair we have to do this amount of job just to get things to work the way they're supposed to.

    William

    Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:55 AM
  • An IT friend of mine referred me to this thread as I'm having the same issue as others.  I read through every post in this thread as I am in desperation mode after being plagued by this issue since May/June of last year.  Listed below are the specs of the machines and network.  In addition to the machines discussed, I have several other computers/devices connected through the network either hardlined or wireless as follows:  FreeNAS server (hardlined), old Acer laptop running MCE (wireless), HDHomeRun (hardlined), Media Extender (hardlined), iPad (wireless) and Wii (wireless).

    Machines:

    Win7 box:  Win7 Home 64-bit SP1, Asus P7P55D EVO MB, Core i7-860, 8gb G. Skill DDR-1600 memory, 3 WD 640g Blacks Raid-0, 2 XFX 275GTX Nvidia VC's, built-in Realtek 8112L / 8110SC gigabit LAN

    XP box:  WinXP Pro 32-bit SP3, Intel 875pbz MB, 3.0ghz P4, 1gb Kingston memory, WD 36gb Raptor 10k RPM (OS HDD), Seagate 500gb IDE (multimedia HDD), Seagate 1tb SATA (TV recording HDD), ATI 9800Pro VC, built-in Intel gigabit LAN

    Network:

    Fully wired Cat-5e network running DHCP server through an Actiontec MI424WR Verizon FIOS router and uplinked to a Netgear GS108, unmanaged gigabit switch, all file sharing options enabled, passwords disabled with administrator log-ins.

    Issue:

    From the Win7 machine, I am unable to copy large files across the network to the XP box.   I've tried moving smaller files and they seem to copy across the network without issue.  Unfortunately the size of the file causing the issue is not consistent each time and therefore I haven't been able to pinpoint a size threshold when the copy fails.  For instance, the test file I have been using is a folder that consists of 139 files for a total of 6.5gb.  When I try to copy the entire 6.5gb folder from Win7 to XP the copy window shows "calculating" and after a minute or so returns the following error:

    "There is a problem accessing \\Server\e.  Make sure you are connected to the network and try again."  The error window gives me the options to "Try Again", "Skip" or "Cancel"

     

    Before this error message appears and during the time the copy window shows “calculating” I cannot access any network drives.  If I click the “try again” button on the error message, the error window continues to pop up over and over.  If I click “skip”, it tries to skip the file and continue copying, but returns the same error within a few seconds.  After I click “cancel”, I navigate to the XP box and can see that SOME of the 139 files were copied.  The files that successfully copied are all <200kb.  Only those files up to the first large file (>1gb) are copied.  The error message is produced once copying of the first large file is attempted.  If I try to move only the 1gb file by itself, it appears to start copying (albeit at a painful 10-13kb/sec) and then stops shortly into it.  Interestingly enough, I tried copying another folder of many large music files (200mb in total) and it successfully copied the first 5 songs of one able (~5-8mb each) before it stopped copying and returned the same error message.  If I pull files from the XP box to the Win 7 box (regardless of file size or number of files in the folder), I have no problems and transfer speeds are ~50mb/sec!

    Troubleshooting:

    I've tried all of the suggestions in this thread as well as others I've found on the net and have not found a solution/fix.  I have been using the same test file for which is a folder consisting of 139 files for a total of 6.5gb.  Below is a list of the troubleshooting items I've completed so far.

    1.  Replace Cat5e cables on Win7 and XP boxes - no improvement

    2.  Disconnect all cables from switch except for Win7 and XP – no improvement

    3.  Copy file to another HDD on XP box – no improvement

    4.  Remove all cables from switch (including Win7 and XP) and reconnect just Win7 and XP, forcing router to reassign IP addresses – no improvement

    5.  Changed ports on switch for both Win7 and XP – no improvement

    6.  Turn off antivirus on both machines – no improvement

    7.  Plug only Win7 and XP box into Actiontec router, taking switch out of equation – no improvement

    8.  Update Win7 and XP NIC drivers to latest available – no improvement

    9.  Force full duplex, 1000 speed on both machines – no improvement

    10.  Install CableNut software on XP box to optimize Stack settings – no improvement

    11.  Remove router uplink from switch; remove all Cat5e cables from switch except for Win7 and XP; set static IP’s in both machines – no improvement

    12.  Disable auto tuning and receive side scaling on Win7 box – no improvement

    13.  Turn off Remote Differential Compression on Win7 box – no improvement

    14.  Install 8gb new memory, certified compatible; ran MemTest on each stick and again with all 8gbs installed and no errors reported – no improvement

    15.  Updated to latest MB Bios – no improvement

    16.  Ran copy command in DOS prompt – no improvement

    17.  Disabled Large Send Offload in NIC properties – no improvement

    18.  Unchecked IPv6 in network properties – no improvement

    19.  Confirmed not on “homegroup” and disabled feature altogether – no improvement

    20.  Turned off all power save options related to NIC on both machines – no improvement

    21.  Formatted both Win7 and XP and did clean reinstall of operating systems and bare essential drivers – no improvement.

    22.  Uninstalled all Win7 critical updates – no improvement.

    23.  Tested while machines running in Safe Mode w/networking – THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING!!!  XP to Win7 transfer rates were consistent at ~50mb/sec.  What’s interesting is the Win7 to XP transfer rates as illustrated below.

                a.         Both machines in safe mode:  ~15mb/sec, 10-15% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).

                b.         XP safe mode and Win7 normal operating mode:  ~22mb/sec, 18-20% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).  Slightly better performance but still nowhere near speed copying in the opposite direction.

                c.          Win7 safe mode and XP normal operating mode:  7-8mb/sec, 6-7% network utilization AND ALL FILES COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).

                d.         Both machines in normal operating mode:  Same issue as stated above and only small files are copied.

    I’m hoping someone here might be able to make heads/tails of the safe mode tests and what a logical next step might be.  I've searched the internet and found plenty of posts from other Win7 users being unable to copy large files to XP across a network, but haven't found a real solution or explanation of what is causing the problem.  I've also read somewhere the problem may be an issue in networking a 64-bit and 32-bit operating system together.  Anyone have thoughts/comments on that theory?  I'm looking forward to Microsoft finally admitting there is an issue and offering a solution!!!! 

    UPDATE TO PREVIOUS POST:  Continued troubleshooting as follows.

    24.  Installed Windows Resource Kit for Server2003 (www.windows-it.tk • View topic - Windows 7 Share Problems) - no improvement

    25.  Hardlined MCE laptop to network and test file transfer pushing from Win7 box to MCE laptop – no improvement

    26.  Copy file across network from XP box to hardlined MCE laptop, initiating copy from Win7 box – no improvement

    27.  Connect MCE laptop to network via wireless ‘G’ and test file transfer pushing from Win7 box – ALL 139 FILES ARE COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).  Since the copy was performed across the wireless network, transfer speeds were a dismal 2.6-2.7mb/sec and took close to 45 minutes, BUT the entire folder and all of its contents transferred successfully.

    28.  Copy file from MCE laptop (wireless ‘G’ connection) to XP box, initiating copy from Win7 box – ALL 139 FILES ARE COPIED (INCLUDING LARGE 1GB FILES).  Since the copy was performed across the wireless network, transfer speeds were a dismal 2.6-2.7mb/sec and took close to 45 minutes, BUT the entire folder and all of its contents transferred successfully.

    29.  Adjusted the following settings on Win7 box (SpeedGuide.net :: Windows 7, Vista, 2008 Tweaks):  a)  Disable windows scaling hueristics, b) disable auto tuning (previously done in step #12), c) set congestion provider to ctcp, d) enable ecn capability (first ran internet connectivity evaluation tool and achieved successful results across the board), e) enable RSS, f) enable TCP Chimney Offload, g) enable direct cache access, h) enable netdma.  I left all other settings unchanged. - FILES SUCCESSFULLY COPIED FROM WIN7 TO XP BOX AT ~40-45mb/sec!!!!

    30.  I needed to confirm which parameter adjustment fixed the problem, so one-by-one I changed each of the above parameters in step #28 back to the original setting...testing the file transfer after each change.  Strangely enough, there was no impact on the file copying from Win7 to the XP box!  It still worked!!!  I continued to try copying the large files and it seemed as though the transfer speed decreased with each attempt.  Initially was 40-45mb/sec...then around 35mb/sec and then seemed to level off at about 22mb/sec. 

    31.  I then changed all of the TCP Global Parameter settings back to the original settings (basically the starting point of step #28.  This time only the first file in the folder of files (8kb) copied and nothing else!!

    32.  I then changed all of the TCP Global Parameter settings back to the SpeedGuide.net recommended settings and as performed in step #28 and the transfer from Win7 to XP still did not work!!!  This time it copied the small files in the folder up to the first large file (>1gb).

    Apparently Windows 7 can learn, adapt and outsmart traditional troubleshooting techniques and can adjust on the fly to continue to screw with its end users.  How can making these changes after step #28 result in what seems to be a closed case, quickly turn into the same issue again without any other setting adjustments?!?!?!  I AM NOW COMPLETELY STUPIFIED!!!!


    • Proposed as answer by TechWill28 Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:59 AM
    • Unproposed as answer by TechWill28 Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:59 AM
    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:08 AM
  • Hi Jasmith.

    Sorry for the propose/unpropose answers - didn't know what it was compared to Reply.

    I want to thank you so much for sharing your experiences. Went over to microsoft-site and saw all the Answer-forums, where a lot of people asked and got answers, but no solutions. When looking at the age of this thread it's becomes evident, that we have to solve this ourselves, so thank you again.

    Though it didn't help me, from what I understand from the Speedguide description, the Heuristics is where you turn off the "intelligent" Windows behavior.

    Now I'll have to admit, that though develloping software for 30 years and using network a lot in big companies, I'm not an expert in how a network works. I guess, that when the two boxes have negotiated a speed, this should be the same both ways. If I can send at close to 1Gbps it should be the same the other way, right?

    Like you I've only tried settings on the Windows 7 PC. But wouldn't it be logical, if the older equipment like sends in an older format, which the newer equipment understands and then when the newer equipment tries to send in a newer format, that the old equipment doesn't understand, things go wrong?

    I'm thinking about trying to fiddle with the XP box - have some work to do first, so will get back.

    William

     

     

     

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:15 AM
  • Hello Everyone...and thanks for your efforts.  Of course, I also had the issues you all have described, and I have tried some things as well to try to get over this annoying file copy issue. 

    One thing that got me some significant inprovement was to modify the 'Interrupt Moderation Rate' for the adapter from Adaptive to High.  For me, this setting is found by going to your network connection Properties, and then  Configure --> Advanced --> Performance Options (Setting in List Box) --> Properties.

    After changig the value to High, I saw a marked improvement, but it still wasn'tas good as I had hoped. 

    I was about to give up when my coworker came over and told me to try the next thing, which seemed so trivial, I scoffed at him....  but decided to try it to humor him...

    I changed my Link Speed settings from being forced to a setting to Auto Negotiation. 

    As soon as I did that..BOOM..I had all my file copy speed back.  The link speed auto negotioated to the same speed and duplex I had forced, but auto negotiating must do some more tuning than that. 

    I hope this helps some of you.  I'm sure it won't work for everyone, as this problem seems to have many facets to it.  (USB Drive copy slow???  Just Strange)

    Anyway, good luck to everyone - and I admit..I stopped reading at about post 80, so I hope this hasn't already been put out there.

    Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:36 PM
  • Question