Topic: Tagging files stored on a Network drive is Slow (Read 11966 times)

jleerigby · « **on:** January 02, 2004, 07:05:42 am »

I've just installed a second PC which shares the MC library (not concurrent usage) and MP3s that are stored on another PC. This works fine as the drive containing all the files is mapped to the same drive letter on each PC.

I have noticed however that tagging (e.g. changing genre on a group of 20 files) is considerably slower if it's done across the network drive. I cannot understand why this should be given that the connection speed will be 100Mbps.

Does anyone else experience this problem? Is there anything I can do to speed things up?

NickM · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2004, 08:26:06 am »

With MC10.0.18 I have noticed VERY slow updates with a Firewire drive. Having just loaded 10.0.27 I will try again.
nick

DJMUK · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2004, 10:21:15 am »

I don’t know that this is of direct help but it may help JRiver.

I have a small network running MS Small Business Server 2000 (so it is a ‘domain’ not just ‘home networking’). All my APE/MP3 files are on the server and are accessed from any one of 3 PC but only one at a time. This is accessed directly i.e. not using media server.

I have no problem playing files but now and then tagging will take a long time. As an example I might change a tag on 20 files and it will display the dialog where it shows the number of changes made and at some point will freeze. This can be from 5 to 30 seconds and then it will go on. Other times it can change a 1,000 with no pause.

I have not been able to pin down the reason for this although I can’t dismiss network problems as SBS 2000 does have problems at times with WinXP clients as mine are.

David

NickM · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2004, 10:23:34 am »

I tried updating the rating tag for 4,000 files on a network drive. Comitting the change seems to update at about 10 files per second. Rather subjective answer but for what it's worth, the workstation is a Pentium M 1.5GHz, 100BTLAN and SNAP4500 RAID5 server.

I re-ran the same tast on a local Firewire drive with about the same speed. As expected.

I then switched libraries and did some synchronising with my iPod and re-ran the tests again.

Both slowed down to about 1 file per 10 seconds and I aborted the update.

nick

LisaRCT · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2004, 11:54:08 am »

Quote from: JLee on January 02, 2004, 07:05:42 am

Does anyone else experience this problem? Is there anything I can do to speed things up?

Yup, same here on a 100mbps network (no domain, mapped drive).

Nolonemo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2004, 01:48:07 pm »

I'm not sure this is a MC9 issue. I tried retagging over the network using a standalone tagging program, and it was very slow, to the point where I bailed and ended up copying the filese over to retag and then copying them back.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2004, 05:24:14 pm »

Quote from: Nolonemo on January 02, 2004, 01:48:07 pm

I'm not sure this is a MC9 issue. I tried retagging over the network using a standalone tagging program, and it was very slow, to the point where I was just copying the filese over to retag and then copying them back.

OK, point taken.
Could simply be the 'nature of the beast' I guess. This is my first home network experience.

RavenWing71 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2004, 07:45:55 pm »

Quote from: Nolonemo on January 02, 2004, 01:48:07 pm

I'm not sure this is a MC9 issue. I tried retagging over the network using a standalone tagging program, and it was very slow, to the point where I was just copying the filese over to retag and then copying them back.

Did Copying them over and back seem to speed up the precess? It is very possible that to change the Tags in a MP3 requires that the entire file be copied across the network and back again.

Just my thoughts,

jleerigby · « **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:17:51 am »

I can copy a full directory of 14 files in 11 seconds. If I remove the cover art from the same files across the network it takes 60 seconds.

jj.oneil · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2004, 11:21:58 am »

I'm far from an expert on M$ networking too, but as RavenWing suggests, to update an imbedded mp3 tag may require the whole file to be retrieve & saved across the network. Then there will be the updates to the MC library as well, file locking across the network too, maybe, and then MC probably re-reads the files to display the new tag values. I would casually guess, even on a 100Mbps network, this is going to be at least an order of magnitude slower than tagging locally.

I just tried updating 8 mp3s across a 10Mbps network and it took a cup of tea, a cigarette and this reply to finish. It can probably be summarised by the acronym YYGT - Yes, you get that.

JJ.

NickM · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2004, 11:57:58 am »

It is late Saturday day night and I am sitting infront of my PC with a whisky & cigar.
( This means that I may have to re-run the test tomorrow..)

I tried creating the slow tag update scenarioas before. Although synchornising with my iPod always creates it ( the slow scenario ), sometime MC slows of its own accord. I updated a few dozen tags, waited twenty minutes then decided to copy from the network drive to my workstation and back again using Explorer.

Whilst the tag update was still running at a file per minute, the explorer transfer was still a matter of seconds.

nick

jleerigby · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2004, 01:16:23 pm »

I thinik Aussie Lunchmeat's good on this networking stuff. Let's hope he drops by soon to tell us what's going on.

zeltak · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2004, 01:44:57 pm »

i have the same problem with slow tagging, and its driving me mad ever since MC 9.0!!

$:-\$

....i really hope someone can find a solution to this...i had a post about it a few months ago. it works fine in my local computer but over a network in some files it could take up to 5 minutes for a normal 12 song album...i really wish this could be fixed someday

zeltak

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2004, 06:58:09 pm »

Hey dudes!

I've mentioned this in a few posts ages ago, dunno whether it'll help, but...

I have had VERY bad network performance between a bunch of Windows machines at home from time to time. My brother has also had this happen to him...

What I almost always find makes things better, is to manually set the speed and duplex settings of the network card in each PC. (ie if yer all hooked up to a 100Mb switch - set the SPEED to 100mb and the DUPLEX to FULL). It appears that there are some NICs (Network Interface Cards) out there which just don't auto-negotiate their link settings correctly.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work for all machines. So, if you have, say 2 machines at home, try settings things on the server, and the client, if it doesn't seem to improve things, switch it back off on the client, if it still doesn't improve, switch it on on the client, and switch it off on the server etc etc.

Hope this helps...

10sne1 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2004, 09:29:03 pm »

I was frustrated with working with files on a networked drive so I copied them to an Maxtor external firewire drive connected to my PC. Whenever I'm changing tags on files located on this drive it takes FOREVER. I wouldn't mind so much if I could still work with other aspects of MC or if it didn't slow my whole machine down so much. It's a chore and I need lots of patience to do any modifications on my library....so I do bits at a time until I can't stand it anymore.

jleerigby · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2004, 12:05:27 pm »

Quote from: LunchmeatVoom on January 05, 2004, 06:58:09 pm

Hey dudes!

I've mentioned this in a few posts ages ago, dunno whether it'll help, but...

I have had VERY bad network performance between a bunch of Windows machines at home from time to time. My brother has also had this happen to him...

What I almost always find makes things better, is to manually set the speed and duplex settings of the network card in each PC. (ie if yer all hooked up to a 100Mb switch - set the SPEED to 100mb and the DUPLEX to FULL). It appears that there are some NICs (Network Interface Cards) out there which just don't auto-negotiate their link settings correctly.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work for all machines. So, if you have, say 2 machines at home, try settings things on the server, and the client, if it doesn't seem to improve things, switch it back off on the client, if it still doesn't improve, switch it on on the client, and switch it off on the server etc etc.

Hope this helps...

Thanks Lunch, I'll try that.

I'm just using 2 PC's with onboard LAN via a Xover cable. I already tried setting them both to Full Duplex but I didn't try the other variations you mentioned.

JimH · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2004, 12:14:50 pm »

I agree with Lunchmeat that this is a problem. I've seen it multiple times and forcing the speed to the same setting works.

jleerigby · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:17:49 pm »

Unfortunately I hasn't worked for me. I also tried Lunch's suggestion but no luck. It still takes about 60 secs to remove cover art stored inside 14 files and about 75 secs to put it back.

Is it because I'm using OnBoard LAN? Would it help to purchase 2 identical PCI NICs and put one in each PC?

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:27:07 pm »

Onboard NIC has always worked fine for me.

Didja try changing setting on both and/or either machine??

Also, it may be worth trying another X-Over cable (or re-crimping the ends if you have a crimper).

Dodgy cables cause me a lot of pain. Sometimes even brand new, store-bought ones don't work as well as they should...

I guess it could be the way this process works, then. ie. maybe every file gets opened, read, written, then closed.

I don't generally come across these issues with MC, as I use my Media Server machine to make all changes on.

One question, I gather that the SNAP4500 has an embedded Linux OS. I have often found it problematic changing the speed/duplex under Linux (usually involves putting some settings into the /etc/modules.conf file). Does the web interface on your SNAP allow you to set the speed/duplex?? AND, if you change settings on the SNAP box, you probably have to power-cycle it to make the changes effective (unlike WinXP where it cycles the NIC internally - I assume that's what you're running??)

Bartabedian · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:30:27 pm »

Can't say if Lunchmeat's option will work as I have yet to try it, but here's what I can offer:

Tagging in MC is different than most other tagging progs, and will almost always lose the speed race, sometimes by as much as five times slower, yes 5x! This is because MC will almost always rewrite the file when tagging.

The MC tag is heavily customizable, and the price paid is in speed.

Firewire drives have been a problem in MC for a very long time now and I'm not sure if it's that MC sees them as network drives or not, but that was always a question put out there and never answered. After a year of hair pulling snail tagging, I gave up my two external FW drives for a larger and faster internal SATA, much better perfromance.

A key issue in speeding up MC tags is drive cache size (the larger the faster).

Add these issues to a network and you'll see the lag is obvious.

B

NickM · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2004, 01:10:36 pm »

Lunhcmeat, you asked about the SNAP NIC handling;

The SNAP web GUI handles this - you don't need to delve into the Linnux directories at all.
For example...

Port Name: Ethernet1
IP Address Obtained By: Static
IP Address: x.y.0.208
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: x.y.0.27

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domain Name Server(s): x.y.0.27
Domain Name:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonding Status: Standalone
Speed Status: 100 via Auto
Duplex Status: full via Auto

Youan set these to manula, but the auto settings negotiate fine with my Cisco switch. As for re-booting - I haven't needed to since the machine was installed... So can't add any help there.

n

LisaRCT · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2004, 02:12:22 pm »

I still find the slow tagging on my network AND sometimes on a local drive.
(NO I do not have the bio's and lyrics in there! . . . plus this is a small library [under 1000 files]!!)

I am not sure I can force my NIC @100 as my DSL Modem requires a link up @ 10.unless I run dual NIC cards ?
(hey! it's not like I know what I am talking about or anything)

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2004, 03:44:41 pm »

NickM,

You have a Cisco switch in there? Have you set the Cisco switch ports to hard settings?

I first became aware of this issue when I had a whole bunch of Sun Solaris (UNIX), Linux and PCs (with various types of NICs) connected via Cisco switches (I am a sysadmin by trade).

The Snap box might auto-negotiate properly with the Cisco, but my experience was that not many PC NICs would, and the Suns just didn't at all. They would work, but the more traffic flowed across the link (say using NFS), the more it bogged down. The difference was staggering when you hard set the SUN and the switch ports.

( I guess this might not be such an issue any more, if the Cisco IOS is newer, maybe they've fixed these sorts of issues up...)

Maybe it is an issue with MC. Does MC do some sort of throttling if it's dealing with external / network drives??

JimH · « **Reply #23 on:** January 07, 2004, 04:11:28 pm »

Quote from: LunchmeatVoom on January 07, 2004, 03:44:41 pm

Maybe it is an issue with MC. Does MC do some sort of throttling if it's dealing with external / network drives??

No.

jleerigby · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2004, 04:47:57 pm »

I brought my new HTPC upstairs and connected it via a new short X-over cable but it was exactly the same. I also tried between 2 Western Digital Caviar SE drives with 8MB cache. Still no joy. I've tried every setting possible on the NICs and all I can do is make it slower. I've re-run the network wizard in XP and Norton and I've disabled Norton.

I'm thinking of giving up now and migrating my all my files back to the upstairs PC where I'll do most of the tagging. This is a bit of a pain as I'll have to swap the hard drives between the 2 PC's after spending 2 weeks installing and customising everything.

Hence I'm now busy learning all about Norton Ghost to see if that will allow me to swap the hard drives between the 2 systems and restore each one from the image.

Bartabedian · « **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2004, 04:53:07 pm »

If your swapping system (OS, and I'm assuming XP) drives, the only way I've done this with positive results is doing a repair install, of course you lose all updates like SP or other hot fixes, but all else is saved nicely. I suppose it could be pulled off with imaging, but only if each system is identical in every way, especially MB and card specs.

Also, I'd love to hear estimated specs on time for tagging, as everybody's definition of slow is quite random (and what a shocker, I'm a particularly impatient bugger myself). Basically, it would be helpful to hear what kind of time it takes per file or some other timed response so as to know if it's just basic networking or is there a real problem with the setup.

B

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2004, 10:03:15 pm »

I just tested an update of tags to a network drive at work, with the files located on a network server (running Windows 2000).

I was monitoring file activity using the Sysinternals (www.sysinternals.com) File Monitor.

From the first write to the network drive where the MP3's are located, it took 7 seconds to update the tags on 25 files. This is on a normal company LAN.

I don't know what conclusions to draw from this...

10sne1 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2004, 10:11:03 pm »

I have noticed irregular lengths of time for tagging. Sometimes the first time I tag tracks on an album it goes very fast....then the next one is slow, very slow. Both on network drive. Also if I've already changed one part of tag (for instance artist) and it writes to the files, and then change another part of tags (like album) the second time is very, very quick!! ?

jleerigby · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2004, 02:57:34 am »

Quote

If your swapping system (OS, and I'm assuming XP) drives, the only way I've done this with positive results is doing a repair install, of course you lose all updates like SP or other hot fixes, but all else is saved nicely. I suppose it could be pulled off with imaging, but only if each system is identical in every way, especially MB and card specs.

What I'm actually doing is swapping the hard drives between systems but leaving the software with the system it's currently in. So I take an image of HDD1 in system1 then put HDD2 in system1 and restore it from the image of what was on HDD1. This should work right?

Quote

I just tested an update of tags to a network drive at work, with the files located on a network server (running Windows 2000).

I was monitoring file activity using the Sysinternals (www.sysinternals.com) File Monitor.

From the first write to the network drive where the MP3's are located, it took 7 seconds to update the tags on 25 files. This is on a normal company LAN.

I don't know what conclusions to draw from this...

The conclusion you can draw is that you've made me jealous. I want some of that performance. I assume you were you using MC to do this tagging? Could it just be that crossover connections between 2 PC's is slow?

Bartabedian · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2004, 10:05:09 am »

Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 02:57:34 am

What I'm actually doing is swapping the hard drives between systems but leaving the software with the system it's currently in. So I take an image of HDD1 in system1 then put HDD2 in system1 and restore it from the image of what was on HDD1. This should work right?

As long as the drives you are swapping are strictly data (I'm guessing their your media files),then yes, if they are OS's, no.

Bartabedian · « **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2004, 02:01:17 pm »

A side note, Lunchmeat's suggestion absolutely rendered my network unusable. Just utterly useless. I don't blame you Lunchmeat, I'm sure it's a good suggestion for some, but beware those who try it, performance may vary depending on your specific setup. And it's easy enough to put back.

JimH · « **Reply #31 on:** January 08, 2004, 02:30:18 pm »

I've seen Windows file sharing exhibit similar slowness between two PC's (no MC involved). It's as if the first attempt to access a directory has to time out before a second attempt is made. It's a delay of around 15 or 20 seconds.

I personally think there are a lot of glitches in Windows networking.

You might try a google search for similar problems.

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2004, 04:04:48 pm »

Actually, I've just been using the Tweak-XP Pro V2 tool (which came free on this months Aus PC magazine). www.tweak-xp.com

Under the "Tricks & Tweaks" pane, There is an option called "Speed up network access". You can toggle this setting on (I assume this changes some registry value). The description given is:

"Windows XP checks a remote computer for scheduled tasks before it gives you access to any shared folder. This procedure can take up to 30 seconds and does slow down network access enormously. To speed up your network connections, check the option below and restart your machine. This will force Windows XP not to check for any scheduled tasks on a remote computer".

Also, found this on the www.tweakxp.com site (worth checking out this site for sure!!):

---
There was a bug in windows 2000 that would cause the scheduled tasks folder to be searched when ever the user would browse network drives. Microsoft developed a fix for this bug. The fix fixed the problem and it also had nice side affect of speeding up browsing of Microsoft networks. Below are instructions how to apply the fix.

1. Open up regedit.
2. Navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace.
3. Find a key named {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}.
4. Right click on it and delete it.
5. Restart
---

Even though it mentions Windows 2000, it says this applies to all versions of Windows XP.

I would say that the Tweak-XP Pro tool just gives you a nice GUI way of doing the registry change.

See if this helps...

jleerigby · « **Reply #33 on:** January 08, 2004, 04:17:45 pm »

Quote from: Bartabedian on January 08, 2004, 10:05:09 am

Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 02:57:34 am
What I'm actually doing is swapping the hard drives between systems but leaving the software with the system it's currently in. So I take an image of HDD1 in system1 then put HDD2 in system1 and restore it from the image of what was on HDD1. This should work right?

As long as the drives you are swapping are strictly data (I'm guessing their your media files),then yes, if they are OS's, no.

Are you sure? I thought that was the whole point of Norton Ghost - to get you up an running quickly from an image copy if your HDD dies? Has anyone else tried this?

Lunch - Thanks for the info. I'll try it.

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #34 on:** January 08, 2004, 04:27:21 pm »

I've just been looking drive imaging software, and had a brief play with Ghost (Version 7 - gotta say it didn't grab me!). I just imaged and swapped my wife's hard drive onto a new one. I used Powerquest Drive Image 6 to accomplish this. Having a look on the net indicates that Norton (Symantec) have bought Powerquest on December 5, so hopefully Ghost will die, and Drive Image will be reborn as a Symantec product.

With Drive Image, you plonk yer brand new hard drive into the machine as a secondary drive (don't bother partitioning or formatting it).

Start Windows

Run Drive Image - say you wanna COPY DRIVE - copy C: to the new drive.

Drive Image then shuts down windows and boots into some sorta semi GUI DOS kinda thingy where it actually does the copy. It took around 30 minutes to image a 6.5Gb drive.

Then you swap the old drive out, leaving the new drive as your primary.

Boot off it, straight into Windows XP - no problemo!

The only thing I didn't like whas that the old drive being a mere 6.5Gb, the copy only created a partition on the new drive the same size (who can really blame it!!), so I had to use Partition Magic to extend the partition to fill the full 40Gb of the new drive (which took about 3 seconds).

jleerigby · « **Reply #35 on:** January 08, 2004, 04:39:29 pm »

I don't have a copy of drive image or partition magic but now I know what to use if Ghost doesn't do the job. Thankfully I have a couple of spare 120 GB HDDs that I can use to play around with.

My main worry is that my OEM version of XP Pro will throw a wobbler and ask to be reactivated when it boots up and realises it mystically ported itself to another hard drive. I guess if that happens it's just another grovely phone call to MS where I play dumb and ask them 'why has this strange message appeared just 'cos I replaced my HDD - (again!).

jj.oneil · « **Reply #36 on:** January 08, 2004, 06:14:47 pm »

Lunchmeat,

Thanks very much for that tweak spot. It seems to have sorted my problem out. 6 mp3 update in 12 secs across a 10Mbps link.

Cheers, JJ

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #37 on:** January 08, 2004, 07:07:49 pm »

Glad to be of some help...

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #38 on:** January 08, 2004, 07:40:52 pm »

I just found this on the TweakXP site...

Another network speedup is to disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP in your network properties:

Select Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), and click on properties.

Click on "advanced", go to "WINS" tab, and chose Disable NetBios over TCP/IP.

It may help also...

WARNING WARNING!

If you DO disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP, and you log into an NT or Active Directory domain, you find that you can't browse network shares. Re-enabling NetBIOS fixes this!!

Nolonemo · « **Reply #39 on:** January 08, 2004, 08:31:34 pm »

Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 04:17:45 pm

Quote from: Bartabedian on January 08, 2004, 10:05:09 am
Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 02:57:34 am
What I'm actually doing is swapping the hard drives between systems but leaving the software with the system it's currently in. So I take an image of HDD1 in system1 then put HDD2 in system1 and restore it from the image of what was on HDD1. This should work right?

As long as the drives you are swapping are strictly data (I'm guessing their your media files),then yes, if they are OS's, no.

Are you sure? I thought that was the whole point of Norton Ghost - to get you up an running quickly from an image copy if your HDD dies? Has anyone else tried this?

Lunch - Thanks for the info. I'll try it.

I think the point is that if you image the OS drive and put it into a system with different hardware you'll have driver and such incompatibilities (that could be evenually solved by installing the drivers for the different hardware). Imaging and swapping HDs in and out of the same system is not a problem.

Bartabedian · « **Reply #40 on:** January 08, 2004, 09:47:54 pm »

Quote from: Nolonemo on January 08, 2004, 08:31:34 pm

Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 04:17:45 pm
Quote from: Bartabedian on January 08, 2004, 10:05:09 am
Quote from: JLee on January 08, 2004, 02:57:34 am
What I'm actually doing is swapping the hard drives between systems but leaving the software with the system it's currently in. So I take an image of HDD1 in system1 then put HDD2 in system1 and restore it from the image of what was on HDD1. This should work right?

As long as the drives you are swapping are strictly data (I'm guessing their your media files),then yes, if they are OS's, no.

Are you sure? I thought that was the whole point of Norton Ghost - to get you up an running quickly from an image copy if your HDD dies? Has anyone else tried this?

Lunch - Thanks for the info. I'll try it.

I think the point is that if you image the OS drive and put it into a system with different hardware you'll have driver and such incompatibilities (that could be evenually solved by installing the drivers for the different hardware). Imaging and swapping HDs in and out of the same system is not a problem.

Yes yes, that's what I've been trying to say, and it sounded like that's what Jlee was doing, swapping between 2 "Systems". Swapping on the same system, sure, no problem. I've used Drive Image for that, works like a charm. But swapping two different HARDWARE systems, can only be done with repair of windows so it can rectify the changes in hardware, MB, chipsets, etc.

jleerigby · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2004, 07:01:00 am »

I backed up 111 gigabytes worth of files last night using XP Pro's back up utility. The destination drive was a network drive. It took 6 hours and 56 minutes. My maths tells me that the tfr rate is therefore 36 megabits per second. That sounds pretty good to me but I get nothing like that when tagging.

If the average mp3 is 4000KB and I'm tagging 14 files thats 458,752,000 bits. Let's say that tagging has to transfer the files back and forth (read then write) I can double the figure to 917,514,000 bits. In 70 seconds I reckon that amounts to 12.5 Mbps. Maybe that's what you can expect.

NickM · « **Reply #42 on:** January 09, 2004, 07:37:18 am »

Lunchmeat, read your suggestion about Netbios over TCP/IP - you are correct, but...

If you have a PC on a LAN and wish to use local network shares; use NetBeui for that.
If you have machines on the same network that access the Internet, uses TCP/IP ( as suggested with NetBios off ).

The risk is that with TCP/IP and Netbios over TCP/IP, someone on the outside of your netwrok could see your personal LAN shares.

Ideally, you should use a router/firewall that removes the ability for external viewing of your active protocols or ports. Direct connections are always a problem.

You asked about the Cisco switches - there is nothing on the switch that is hard set - the swithc boots a cut down Linnux OS and this governs all the aspects of the configuration. There are settings that determine how each port bahaves - sole, broadcast, even limiting specific protocols. THANKFULLY, the latest OS has a Java based GUI, so you don't have to go back to command line scripts to get the thing to work.

I set my MC machines on broadcast, so that any client can pick them up more efficiently. Of course, I set the data servers on that too.

I seem to remember that the TWEAK registry entry is to do with resource name lookup caching. The sledghammer way around this is to edit your host file in C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc and add the entries manually - that will gve the BEST lookup time.

n

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Tagging files stored on a Network drive is Slow (Read 11966 times)

jleerigby

LisaRCT

LisaRCT

jleerigby

jleerigby

jleerigby

jleerigby

LisaRCT

jleerigby

jleerigby

jleerigby

jleerigby

jleerigby