Share vs. Local Drive Performance

  • Thread starter Thread starter IVEY
  • Start date Start date
I

IVEY

We have a Windows 2000 Server with the folowing
configuration:
C: (local system disk)
D: (local hard disk shared as TOOLS)
E: (mapped drive \\server\TOOLS)

You can access D: without issue. However, access to E: is
approximatly 5X slower than D:. Is this as designed?
 
Accessing from what type of client and using what interface?

--

Thanks,
Marc Reynolds
Microsoft Technical Support

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
I observe a similar effect. Here are the parameters:

- OS: Win2000 SP4
- Test 1: Copy a large folder from D: to C:. Average time required: 5.5
seconds.
- Test 2: Copy the same folder from Z: to C:. Average time required: 11
seconds.
Drive Z: is mapped to D$ on the same workstation.
- Command used in each case:
xcopy /s d:\SomeFolder c:\temp\Test\Test1\ (or Test2, Test3 etc). or
xcopy /s z:\SomeFolder c:\temp\Test\Test2\ (or Test3, Test4 etc). or
- Drive C: is FAT32, drive D: is NTFS.

I suspect that the redirector causes the performance to drop.
 
No client is involved in my case either. The mapped drive
is pointing to a drive on that local system. We have to
have the extra drive letter for old programs and data that
were hardcoded to look for a specific drive letter.
 
Back
Top