Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Slowdown after mounting DFS network drives

[Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx>]

Also remember in troubleshooting these issue, that what is seen on the network (via Wireshark) is only part of the picture. You should try to marry network traffic with activity or events seen on the workstation. Sometime this will be invisible to you, however you might need to workthrough the scripts or startup applications, as well look at logs (or on windows machines,the event viewer). Sometimes you might have opportunity to increase the log verbosity (to a debug level) or even use system trace tools on possible culprit applications to determine the system calls they are making (and hence trigger the network traffic you see).

As has been stated the client is choosing to wait between server requests. The server always responds promptly, with what it believes to be the right answer. The client seems not to be satisfied and hence tries again. Not knowing what the client is making visible to the user at this time (or its effect on the start process or applications) makes further diagnosis on our part pretty much speculative.

Regards, Martin

MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Kevin Cullimore <kcullimo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 4/6/2010 7:14 AM, Ian Schorr wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Kevin Cullimore<kcullimo@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
>> That data would appear to be insufficient in isolation. To their
>> unlikely credit, Microsoft maintains decent documentation as far as
>> their protocol stacks are concerned. Conjoining both your capture and
>> knowledgebase articles referencing their networking client behavior
>> could result in an argument more difficult to deny/refute.
>>
> As several people have mentioned, there doesn't appear to be anything
> to take back to the CIFS server admin.  The client appears to be 100%
> behind the search for the DLLs and the timeout inbetween each attempt.
>   The CIFS server isn't doing anything to trigger this (except existing
> as a system serving a mapped drive) and so can't be considered
> responsible for the problem.  The problem exists on the 10.84.10.173
> PC and needs to be resolved there.
>
>

This may well be the best summary of the actual problem. Often, one
needs total buy-in and affirmation from the sever admin in order to
inspire those responsible for the client software to take appropriate
action (the "no other choice but to stop practicing denial and fix the
problem" scenario).

> -Ian
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list<wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>               mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
            mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe