Huge thanks to our Platinum Members Endace and LiveAction,
and our Silver Member Veeam, for supporting the Wireshark Foundation and project.

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

From: Kevin Cullimore <kcullimo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:05:49 -0400
On 4/7/2010 11:26 AM, János Löbb wrote:
Folks,

Thanks a lot for all your comments.  Now I see more clearly :-)

For system trace tool  - on Windows - I was suggested to use FileMon:

<snip>
The Sysinternals FileMon utility (Filemon.exe) monitors and displays file system activity on the computer in real time. When this problem occurs, multiple error messages that resemble the following are logged in the FileMon log file:
589 2:54:14 PM wscript.exe:2212 QUERY INFORMATION C:\WINNT\System32\wshENU.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes: Error
</snip>

Thanks again,

If you're stuck with windows, utilities written by Mark Russinovich generally provide you with more visibility than competing alternatives. Separately, do keep in mind that Network Monitor allows you to filter by process ID.

János
On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:35 AM, M K wrote:

Aha.  You have hit on something when you said "possible culprit
applications to determine the system calls they are making (and hence
trigger the network traffic you see)." What system trace tools do you
suggest to help perform the analysis for these system calls?
Currently I am using multiple tools that provide some sort of
visibility and then cross-referencing the results.  I am also reducing
the number of apps as a process of elimination.  Or, to maybe put it
another way, does anyone have suggestions for ethical apps (OS, Word
processing, spreadsheet, browser, etc) ?  I have had way too many
experiences with apps acting otherwise in the background.

Thanks for any insight.

On 4/6/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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




--
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

             ~Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________________________________
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