win2k-to-win2k drive share directory list updating odd behavior

We have a very large, busy wan (ATT MPLS) network with many sites fully
meshed connected, with many servers connected with AD. We have many drive
shares with various share arrangements between 2k3 - xp, 2k3 - 2k, 2k-xp, and
2k-2k. Everything is working, but...

2k-2k drive sharing is the problem. While the connection maps properly, the
directory contents does not list at all, until the f5 update key is pressed,
then it is listed correctly - for that folder in the drive share. File copies
from this drive share appear to tranfer at normal rates.

Peforming a dos "dir" exhibits the same behavior. The same win2k server
mapping to a 2k3 share or a xp share, does not exhibit this behavior - even
using the same wan path and utilization rates. Only 2k-2k drive shares is
affected.

We tried various 2k servers at different sites - same result. Sometimes it
appears to work, when the wan is not heavily utilized late at night - but not
always.

Question - why is 2k-2k file shares more sensitive to this over other type
of shares. This started about 2 weeks ago, - trending indicates no
configuration or utilization changes on the network. Comments, please. The
only bad idea is the one left unstated...

Thanks, in advance. Jim

jimbathurst
Mon Dec 10 18:27:01 PST 2007

Please remove this posting - I moved it to the win2k file_system posting
area since I did not get a whimper posting it here. Thanks, Jim

"jim.bathurst" wrote:

> We have a very large, busy wan (ATT MPLS) network with many sites fully
> meshed connected, with many servers connected with AD. We have many drive
> shares with various share arrangements between 2k3 - xp, 2k3 - 2k, 2k-xp, and
> 2k-2k. Everything is working, but...
>
> 2k-2k drive sharing is the problem. While the connection maps properly, the
> directory contents does not list at all, until the f5 update key is pressed,
> then it is listed correctly - for that folder in the drive share. File copies
> from this drive share appear to tranfer at normal rates.
>
> Peforming a dos "dir" exhibits the same behavior. The same win2k server
> mapping to a 2k3 share or a xp share, does not exhibit this behavior - even
> using the same wan path and utilization rates. Only 2k-2k drive shares is
> affected.
>
> We tried various 2k servers at different sites - same result. Sometimes it
> appears to work, when the wan is not heavily utilized late at night - but not
> always.
>
> Question - why is 2k-2k file shares more sensitive to this over other type
> of shares. This started about 2 weeks ago, - trending indicates no
> configuration or utilization changes on the network. Comments, please. The
> only bad idea is the one left unstated...
>
> Thanks, in advance. Jim

Bob
Tue Dec 11 05:33:14 PST 2007

This is really a newsgroup, the message will live forever.

jim.bathurst wrote:
> Please remove this posting - I moved it to the win2k file_system posting
> area since I did not get a whimper posting it here. Thanks, Jim
>
> "jim.bathurst" wrote:
>
>
>>We have a very large, busy wan (ATT MPLS) network with many sites fully
>>meshed connected, with many servers connected with AD. We have many drive
>>shares with various share arrangements between 2k3 - xp, 2k3 - 2k, 2k-xp, and
>>2k-2k. Everything is working, but...
>>
>>2k-2k drive sharing is the problem. While the connection maps properly, the
>>directory contents does not list at all, until the f5 update key is pressed,
>>then it is listed correctly - for that folder in the drive share. File copies
>>from this drive share appear to tranfer at normal rates.
>>
>>Peforming a dos "dir" exhibits the same behavior. The same win2k server
>>mapping to a 2k3 share or a xp share, does not exhibit this behavior - even
>>using the same wan path and utilization rates. Only 2k-2k drive shares is
>>affected.
>>
>>We tried various 2k servers at different sites - same result. Sometimes it
>>appears to work, when the wan is not heavily utilized late at night - but not
>>always.
>>
>>Question - why is 2k-2k file shares more sensitive to this over other type
>>of shares. This started about 2 weeks ago, - trending indicates no
>>configuration or utilization changes on the network. Comments, please. The
>>only bad idea is the one left unstated...
>>
>>Thanks, in advance. Jim