W2K3: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

[Guest Dvord Direwood]

I have two file servers which are both running Volume Shadow Copy. One is

W2k3 Std and the other is W2k3 Storage. If I bring up the Previous Versions

tab on a properties window on my XP client, the W2k3 Std shares come right

up, showing me previous backups. The W2k3 Storage one takes nearly 10

minutes to display. Sometimes explorer even crashes on the client.

 

Here are some of the particulars:

 

W2k3 Std SP2

Shadow Copy on D:, 69 shares, 2621 MB out of 54723 MB, Schedule is 10 AM and

2 PM M-F. Shadow copies only exist from 5/5/08 to today (5 currently).

 

W2k3 Storage

Shadow Copy on E:, 2 shares, 32236 MB out of 67904 MB, Schedule is 9 AM and

3 PM M-F. Shadow copies exist from 4/1/08 to today (~56 or so currently).

 

I'm thinking that it's the sheer number of Shadow Copies which is causing

the client to work so slowly on the Storage box, but I'm puzzled as to why

the first server seems to be purging them off early and the second seems to

keep them around so long.

[Guest Dvord Direwood]

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

I figured out why the first server listed only shows 5 shadow copies. There

is a scheduled defrag task that runs on Saturdays. According to

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312067 defrag will delete the shadow

copies.

 

At this point I still don't have an answer as to why it takes so long to

bring up Previous Versions on the other server.

 

 

"Dvord Direwood" <dvord@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OklSwsGsIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>I have two file servers which are both running Volume Shadow Copy. One is

>W2k3 Std and the other is W2k3 Storage. If I bring up the Previous

>Versions tab on a properties window on my XP client, the W2k3 Std shares

>come right up, showing me previous backups. The W2k3 Storage one takes

>nearly 10 minutes to display. Sometimes explorer even crashes on the

>client.

>

> Here are some of the particulars:

>

> W2k3 Std SP2

> Shadow Copy on D:, 69 shares, 2621 MB out of 54723 MB, Schedule is 10 AM

> and 2 PM M-F. Shadow copies only exist from 5/5/08 to today (5

> currently).

>

> W2k3 Storage

> Shadow Copy on E:, 2 shares, 32236 MB out of 67904 MB, Schedule is 9 AM

> and 3 PM M-F. Shadow copies exist from 4/1/08 to today (~56 or so

> currently).

>

> I'm thinking that it's the sheer number of Shadow Copies which is causing

> the client to work so slowly on the Storage box, but I'm puzzled as to why

> the first server seems to be purging them off early and the second seems

> to keep them around so long.

>

[Guest Dvord Direwood]

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

*BUMP*

 

 

 

"Dvord Direwood" <dvord@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:eU3XvEHsIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>I figured out why the first server listed only shows 5 shadow copies.

>There is a scheduled defrag task that runs on Saturdays. According to

>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312067 defrag will delete the shadow

>copies.

>

> At this point I still don't have an answer as to why it takes so long to

> bring up Previous Versions on the other server.

>

>

> "Dvord Direwood" <dvord@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OklSwsGsIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>I have two file servers which are both running Volume Shadow Copy. One is

>>W2k3 Std and the other is W2k3 Storage. If I bring up the Previous

>>Versions tab on a properties window on my XP client, the W2k3 Std shares

>>come right up, showing me previous backups. The W2k3 Storage one takes

>>nearly 10 minutes to display. Sometimes explorer even crashes on the

>>client.

>>

>> Here are some of the particulars:

>>

>> W2k3 Std SP2

>> Shadow Copy on D:, 69 shares, 2621 MB out of 54723 MB, Schedule is 10 AM

>> and 2 PM M-F. Shadow copies only exist from 5/5/08 to today (5

>> currently).

>>

>> W2k3 Storage

>> Shadow Copy on E:, 2 shares, 32236 MB out of 67904 MB, Schedule is 9 AM

>> and 3 PM M-F. Shadow copies exist from 4/1/08 to today (~56 or so

>> currently).

>>

>> I'm thinking that it's the sheer number of Shadow Copies which is causing

>> the client to work so slowly on the Storage box, but I'm puzzled as to

>> why the first server seems to be purging them off early and the second

>> seems to keep them around so long.

>>

>

>

[Guest Dvord Direwood]

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

Re: Volume Shadow Copy Slow Client

 

Last bump. **BUMP**

 

 

"Dvord Direwood" <dvord@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:eU3XvEHsIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>I figured out why the first server listed only shows 5 shadow copies.

>There is a scheduled defrag task that runs on Saturdays. According to

>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312067 defrag will delete the shadow

>copies.

>

> At this point I still don't have an answer as to why it takes so long to

> bring up Previous Versions on the other server.

>

>

> "Dvord Direwood" <dvord@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OklSwsGsIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>I have two file servers which are both running Volume Shadow Copy. One is

>>W2k3 Std and the other is W2k3 Storage. If I bring up the Previous

>>Versions tab on a properties window on my XP client, the W2k3 Std shares

>>come right up, showing me previous backups. The W2k3 Storage one takes

>>nearly 10 minutes to display. Sometimes explorer even crashes on the

>>client.

>>

>> Here are some of the particulars:

>>

>> W2k3 Std SP2

>> Shadow Copy on D:, 69 shares, 2621 MB out of 54723 MB, Schedule is 10 AM

>> and 2 PM M-F. Shadow copies only exist from 5/5/08 to today (5

>> currently).

>>

>> W2k3 Storage

>> Shadow Copy on E:, 2 shares, 32236 MB out of 67904 MB, Schedule is 9 AM

>> and 3 PM M-F. Shadow copies exist from 4/1/08 to today (~56 or so

>> currently).

>>

>> I'm thinking that it's the sheer number of Shadow Copies which is causing

>> the client to work so slowly on the Storage box, but I'm puzzled as to

>> why the first server seems to be purging them off early and the second

>> seems to keep them around so long.

>>

>

>