Windows Server 2008 R2 Slow LAN Transfer (Receive)
Using Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows Server 2008 R2 Two machines, connected via 1GB 1000base-T LAN, with a 1Gb switch between... and yes, I've tried swapping cables and ports. Server has two RAID5's, a 6 platter and an 8 platter. Workstation has two RAID5's, a 3 SSD and a 4 platter. Both sides using Intel CPU's and a RealTek 8100C chipset Gb LAN, same LAN drivers. Using Windows Explorer to COPY a 20GB file: Server Disk1 to Server Disk 2: >250MB/s (Server disk I/O isn't an issue). Server Disk2 to Server Disk 1: >250MB/s (Server disk I/O isn't an issue). Workstation Disk1 to Disk2: >150MB/s (Workstation disk I/O isn't an issue). Workstation Disk2 to Disk1: >150MB/s (Workstation disk I/O isn't an issue). Server Disk1 to Workstation Disk2: 91MB/s (near 100% LAN utilization). All looks good so far: Workstation Disk2 to Server Disk2: 25MB/s declining to 17MB/s; occasionally as low as 9MB/s. Some of the changes listed above appeared to work for a few moments. I've seen as high as 90MB/s for a few seconds, but it declines rapidly under 30MB/s... so no fix that has lasted. It appears there is something in Windows 7 that prevents fast transmits; or something in Windows Server 2008 that blocks fast receives. I have set the server-side receive training to disabled, normal, highlyrestricted, and experimental and the Win7 side to off, normal, and highlyrestricted in various combinations. Again, nothing concrete to report as an improvement. What would the MS Gurus suggest I do with NetMonitor as far as capturing something worth their time to diagnose?
March 15th, 2011 2:55am

Hi, You may use the Network Monitor to capture the packages and to see whether can get anything of value. Based on my understanding, this method may be able to find out the root cause. Also, try the following. Disable Auto-Tuning http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934430 How to use the throttling mechanism to control network performance in Windows Vista http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948066 Hope this helps.Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
March 17th, 2011 4:48am

I've tried disabling auto tuning on the clients with no appreciable effect. The throttling feature however appears to have had an effect - changing the setting from default 10 to 70 has slowed the transfer from 20MB/s down to about an initial 6MB/s that has slowed even further, and is now at 3.2MB/s (3% network utilization according to Resource Monitor at both ends of the wire - WS2008R2 and W7). Question: What does the 10 (0x0a and 70 (0x46) represent: Mbps on the LAN, or 10% and 70% reserved, or? I'll try the "off" setting of all FF's and add to this. In any case, having a backup server that can't be utilized due to client "entertainment media" issues is a little painful... there should be a straightforward and published method to set the network to "normal". UPDATE: I've tried settings of 0, 10, 70, and FFFFFFFF. 10 might have been best, but only marginally better than 70. Range of time to copy was under 7 minutes to over 8 minutes. Very small difference. But I also tried this using Windows Explorer and a Dataset of one folder containing 12.5GB of miscellaneous folders and files - and was surprised. - Dataset is at \\WIN7\Dx\ = = Client physical RAID5 drive D:\Dataset On WIN7 Client: Share drive D with Everyone as Dx On WSvr Server: Share drive D with Everyone as Dx On WIN7 Client: Map \\WSvr\Dx to Z: On WSvr Server: Map \\WIN7\Dx to Z: On WIN7 Client, using Windows Explorer: -- Copy Dataset from Local Drive D: to Network Drive Z: -- Took about 8 minutes, with 20% network utilization. On WSvr (2008 R2 Server), using Windows Explorer: -- Copy Dataset from Network Drive Z: to Local Drive D: -- Took about 3 minutes, and 70% network utilization. Why does running the copy from the server allow better network utilization and net throughput? UPDATE2: I am NOT using HOMEGROUP; I have a dedicated workgroup network the client is a member of, and the server is a DC. I'll eventually try joining the client to the domain and see if that changes anything, but doubt it will so haven't taken the time yet.
March 17th, 2011 7:25pm

Problem remains and has not gone away, so please do not mark something as an answer just because you haven't or can't solve this issue.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
March 27th, 2011 11:51pm

Interesting read and might help: http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx Not so much the eseutil but the new switch for xcopy ( /J Copies using unbuffered I/O. Recommended for very large files. ) Hope that helps.MCSE/MCSA/MCP/Security+,A+
April 14th, 2011 9:47pm

Turkey - thanks. While that provides annother alternative, the slowness isn't in the file i/o, rather, its in the network send (or perhaps network receive side on the server). Since the process of backing up files from clients to servers is something everyone should want to do, it seems odd to me that this issue doesn't have a technote specific to maximizing the network utilization during these types of operations. Plus, allowing the clients to do the work offloads the server of that task. I've resorted to using robocopy on the server pulling files from the clients. This seems to provide best utilization. Though makes recovery of a failed client more tedious.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
April 15th, 2011 1:08am

Have you solved the problem? I seem to be getting a similar situation
June 19th, 2011 8:44am

No resolution yet - I haven't researched this, it might a default server GPO regarding non-domain client resource limitations, one that prevents clients from using more than 10% network bandwidth.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
June 19th, 2011 4:00pm

No resolution yet - I haven't researched this, it might a default server GPO regarding non-domain client resource limitations, one that prevents clients from using more than 10% network bandwidth. I've had some weird problems in my home network - large files transfer well, but small files and any kind of video playback from my WHS 2011 server were terrible - lots of pauses and basically unwatchable. The problem turned out to be the WHQL Realtek drivers. I upgraded to the latest drivers from the Realtek website (dated 23/5/11) and the problem went away.
June 19th, 2011 8:17pm

I am having the same problems as you MitNosegram :( Can't get good transfer speed 1 way, but can the other. But I am going between 2x Win7SP1 x64 machines.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 26th, 2011 8:01pm

What else is using the server? Windows MVP, paid Remote Assistance is available for XP, Vista and Windows 7. My page on Video Card Problems is now my most popular landing page. See my gaming site for game reviews etc. Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews
July 26th, 2011 8:19pm

Mr. Vegan, Server is idle, waiting for file activity: it is just playing the dumb, simple, network file server role. Tried using shares and DFS folders, no change. Problem still exists today.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 26th, 2011 8:58pm

I use Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 and no problems here with the LAN. I use Remote Desktop all the time and I have not experienced any problems when I migrated my web services from the Server 2008 box to the Server 2008 R2 box. Windows MVP, paid Remote Assistance is available for XP, Vista and Windows 7. My page on Video Card Problems is now my most popular landing page. See my gaming site for game reviews etc. Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Hardcore Games | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews
July 26th, 2011 9:12pm

Server push to or pull from Win7 is fine - its when pushing files from Win7 to Server where things slow down. So imagine this: Log on to Server as admin, map a Win7 folder share as R:, copy from remote R: to local D:, things go fast. Note data is "pulled" from from Win7 to Server. Now, log on to Win7 as admin. Map a server share on D: as R:, copy from local D: to remote R:, things are very slow. Note data is being "pushed" from Win7 to Server. So same network, same drivers, same everything... yet different results.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 26th, 2011 9:31pm

Server push to or pull from Win7 is fine - its when pushing files from Win7 to Server where things slow down. So imagine this: Log on to Server as admin, map a Win7 folder share as R:, copy from remote R: to local D:, things go fast. Note data is "pulled" from from Win7 to Server. Now, log on to Win7 as admin. Map a server share on D: as R:, copy from local D: to remote R:, things are very slow. Note data is being "pushed" from Win7 to Server. So same network, same drivers, same everything... yet different results. have you by any chance found solution to this problem? I have the same trouble, pushing files to w2k8 R2 is terribly slow when compared to older 2003 servers and on the other hand pulling files from w2k8 R2 server to workstations is lightning fast... can't figure this one out. my thread: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverfiles/thread/7fd2a924-b1b7-400a-acab-398d09bdb462/ edit: have you by any chance unticked/disabled he IPv6 protocol in 2008 R2 LAN properties? Interestingly, this caused for me the case file transfer slowliness down to 9MB/s. I tried disabling auto-tuning, offload, RSS for minimal gains only... eventually I ticked/enabled again the IPv6 (just told DNS not to listen to it, it's an unneeded protocol on our network) and now 2008 R2 is able to receive file transfers at 24-25MB/s ... weird.
August 17th, 2011 3:11pm

Folks - I believe I have finally discovered the culprit - and I feel pretty dumb about not finding it sooner. Also feeling quite dismayed none of the MS techies could help. Turn off Windows Search service (an indexing service). It seems if you ever "modify" what is searched (like add a new drive to the search oath), the service will begin reading every file that is deleted or added to the search domain. So moving, copying, even deleting files will incur the wrath of Windows Search indexing delays. Again: Turn off / Disable -- Windows Search -- service from starting. Other notes: all network tests, including "msert.exe" reported full LAN bandwidth was available between machines; all machine and network settings were tweaked per "experts", so many false leads. And all along it was a simple indexing tool that eats resources while the computer is "idle". Well Microsoft, when a computer is transferring a few terabytes of data, it is NOT idle. Killing the indexing service, my RAID to eSATA jumped from 30MB/s to 120MB/s, and Win7 to ServerR2 via 1GbE went from 6.75MB/s to 85MB/s. Finally the computers are doing what they are supposed to do.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
December 26th, 2011 1:29pm

I have indexing on and at the moment I have been transferring hundreds of gigabytes of data from my netbook to my server over a wireless-n connection and the DVD drive remains the rate limiting step. I suggest there is some other problem as I have never been able to reproduce the slow performance. I use gigabit Ethernet (typical Cisco hardware) and wireless-n and never have I had a problem. Windows MVP 2010-11, XP, Vista, 7. Expanding into Windows Server 2008 R2, SQL Server, SharePoint, Cloud, Virtualization etc. etc. Hardcore Games, Legendary is the only Way to Play Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews
December 26th, 2011 1:46pm

I suspect if you have never modifed the default indexing settings you may not experience the issue on your HD's. If you are moving data from a DVD - its never indexed, so you'll probably not see the issue in any case. In my case, spinning and SSD drives come and go (external USB and eSATA), and some were probably indexed, some were not. The same for internal arrasy - some foilders were indexed, moved, reindexed, etc. Originally it all appeared to work okay, then at some point later things got slower and slower. Recently it had dropped to below 10MB/s, and as I was watching performance monitor, killing the indexing service immediately increased throughput to >100MB/s. I haven't done any more to see if the indexing database was corrupt, which might explain things. But in Performance Monitor, I watched as Windows Search started after a 30 minute "idle" delay, opening up about 25 disk I/O threads, each thrashing the drive to read the contents of every file being copied. Killing the service those threads started dropping like flies, and the primary task of moving data was able to continue - finally unimpeded. Your mileage may vary...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
December 26th, 2011 2:00pm

I move files around on my network all the time. Unless the machine has an old 100 megabit adapter, speeds are around 100 MB/s Windows MVP 2010-11, XP, Vista, 7. Expanding into Windows Server 2008 R2, SQL Server, SharePoint, Cloud, Virtualization etc. etc. Hardcore Games, Legendary is the only Way to Play Developer | Windows IT | Chess | Economics | Vegan Advocate | PC Reviews
December 26th, 2011 2:06pm

I didn't try turning off the search, but reading your note made me think about other things to turn off. I turned off the firewall on my WHS 2011 server, and BAM, copies moved like they should. I'm going to go back and see what settings I have in the firewall that are causing my problems, but wanted to post this... My issue was copying files from an Windows 7 computer to a Windows Home Server 2011 either took many hours, or not at all. And when I'd try to stop a hung copy it would freeze up the explorer on he windows 7 machine causing me to have to reboot completely. Didn't matter the size of the files, although I could read files, stream music, video and everything else FROM the WHS 2011 box. Hope that helps. Rowdy
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
April 18th, 2012 2:08pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics