Ethereal-users: Re: [Ethereal-users] Why is WinXPPro SMB slower than Win98SE SMB?
Thanx for the tip, Simon. I checked the packet capture set for the XP<->98SE
session, and didn't see any SMB FLUSH PDUs. In order to simplify the
analysis, I've isolated a single shared table read operation that simply
opens the table, and reads a few records. No sign of any flush requests,
which is logical, given that caches writes wouldn't be required.
Interestingly, to complete the same operation in a 98SE<->98SE session,
Ethereal captured 27% fewer frames. Seems that somehow 98SE is more
efficient in this scenario. I wonder why.
APJ.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Hailstone" <Simon.Hailstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ethereal user support" <ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: July 20, 2004 2:34
Subject: RE: [Ethereal-users] Why is WinXPPro SMB slower than Win98SE SMB?
>
>
> >> Howdy, y'all; I'm trying to determine why a 166 MHz Win98SE
> >> machine can, from a DOS box, open a file on a 98SE server via
> >> SMB in less time than can a 1.3 GHz XP client running the same
> >> DOS app.
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> In the trace of XP<->98SE Server, do you see SMB Flush requests
> being sent from the XP host to the 98SE Server? I often see them
> when transferring data between 98 and Win 2k, with one FLUSH
> occuring every 30-40kB or so. They have a very detrimental
> effect on performance.
>
> Follow this reference for more details, if you discover that you
> are in fact seeing this problem.
>
> http://manubatbat.free.fr/doc/smb/4.2.8.htm
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot offer a solution to the problem, merely
> a potential explanation.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon Hailstone
> Orthogon Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-users mailing list
> Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users
>
