Donne Lail wrote:Your network connection to a remote HD is much slower than> I mapped a folder from one PC to the other on a two PC
> network. The folder contains 12,000 photo files. It
> takes less than a second to load on the PC the folder is
> on. But it takes 40 to 50 seconds to load from the other
> PC on the network. This can't be right. Both PC's are
> using Win-XP. The first has a 1.8 ghrz processor and
> 512mb memory. The linked PC has a 2.2 ghrz processor and
> 256 mb memory. Why is it taking so long to load on the
> other PC. What's rong.
than your direct connection to a local HD. That is normal.
There is room for improvement in M$'s implementation of network
protocols, but some difference between local- and remote-access
will always be there. In you case, the inherent difference is
multiplied by 12,000,
If you want to spend money and/or time on reducing the
remote-access time, then you may try these:
1. Replace the 10/100 Mb/s NICs with GbE NICs, and replace your
10/100 Mb/s hub/switch/router with a GbE switch/router.
2. Replace the commodity 10/100 Mb/s NICs with some that are
optimized for performance instead of optimized for cost.
Look for NICs that are designed for servers, although that
designation does not always mean much.
3. You aren't really using a hub, are you? Gag.
4. Make sure you are getting FDX and 100 Mb/s on your NICs.
Sometimes, auto-select doesn't work.
5. Check and experiment with network params, including MTU and
RWIN. Tuning can make a big difference. For starters, look
for DrTCP.exe on the web.
6. If all else fails, lower your expectations; you are, after all,
running commodity software on commodity hardware, with (I assume)
amateur network management.