Incredible!!! HUGE speed improvement

Bruce Cook BC3-AU at
Sun Jan 25 12:29:04 GMT 1998

Jim Watt writes:
 > --On Friday, January 23, 1998, 9:41 AM +1100 "Eloy A. Paris" <eparis at> wrote: 
 > [SNIP!}
 > } Then, suddenly, I had an inspiration: why not to map \\zeus\eparis as
 > } a network drive and use that instead? That's what I did so I started
 > } Eudora as ""C:\Eudora\Eudora.exe I:\Eudora" when I: was mapped to
 > } \\zeus\eparis. Now guess what: the thing flew like a rocket!!! It took
 > } like 3 seconds to get Eudora openened.
 > } 
 > } So, now I know this thing has nothing to do with Samba because in
 > } order to improve speed I did not change anything in Samba, I changed
 > } things in Windows 95.
 > } 
 > } My conclussion is that is a lot slower to access a share through an
 > } network drive than using its UNC path. I guess this is because
 > } Windows 95 has to do a lot more work with the UNC path than with a
 > } drive letter.
 > We've seen dramatic performance differences with Win95 lettered drive
 > mapping versus UNC paths also.  It's disturbing, because maintaining
 > the UNC paths can be done centrally, but not the lettered drive mapping.
 > Don't you mean...
 > } My conclussion is that is a lot faster to access a share through an
 >                                   ^^^^^^
 > } network drive than using its UNC path. 
 > That's what your data, and ours, suggests!

I assume from the original poster, that they are running multiple

I guess that what may be happening with the UNC case, if that the Win95
is looking for the peer machine on the default protocol, failing, and
then looking on IP.

Try setting a machine up with TCP/IP as the only protocol (Remove IPX/SPX
and NetBEUI). and see if this makes any difference.

(If it does, you then have to decide which protocol you care about the

More information about the samba mailing list