RAS is slow, with remote Outlook98 1

[cpurom]

NT4.0, RAS, win95 clients take 2 min. to authenticate and then transfer is slow. Is this normal? What can be done to improve RAS performance, in general? We're using Hayes V.Everything modems on a Digiboard. We have an 800 number hunt group. Connection speed does not exceed 26,400 on the hunt group. On a direct analog line, we get 28.8.<br>
<br>
Most of our users connect to RAS to use Outlook98, remotely, to an Exchange Server. It seems Outlook98 is very slow checking mail remotely. Average connect time to get or transfer one simple message is 3 to 5 minutes.

 

[hwatson]

I found that I could not get better than 26,400 when ever I went through our company PBX. It was completely a PBX thing. The same computer on a different line (direct to outside) got much better performance.<br>
<br>
Harvey

 

[oscarr]

We are having a similar problem, we are being forced to digital lines. <br>
<br>

 

[kbmedia1]

PBX's are old technology and are strictly analog. Your company should try migrating to a DS-1 or better. Your connections are slow because you are running a 28.8 connection. At least upgrading to a 56K V90 would be better<br>
( 40 -45k). Also, if available, look into a cable modem.

 

[cpurom]

Some updates to our plight...<br>
<br>
When dialing in, instead of choosing "Send and Receive", if we choose Tools...Synchronize...all folders--the connection to the Exchange server is much faster.<br>
<br>
Also, having the latest dial-up networking 1.3 (for win95) helps.<br>
<br>
Also, in the dial-up networking session options, setting the "Server Type" to Windows for workgroups and NT3.51 is much faster connecting to a NT4.0 RAS than is the PPP...internet... choice. Of course, you are then relying on netbeui as a protocol, but it is much faster authenticating than the PPP Server type.

 

[lazer1]

Hello , I'm new to the forum . <br>
However , I think I can help with alot of these issues. Or at least try to explain why they are happening the way they are.<br>
1. The PBX thing is for real, the older PBX's are actually stuck at 9600 baud. You see them connecting at 26k and up, that is DTE rate not true connect rates. This is why the programs seem to run better on an analog line . <br>
The idea of going to a DS-1(T-1) for the phone system is a good one , just make sure that the hunt group doesn't go through the PBX for connection or you'll still have the same problems. You can have the lines put as SLI's (single line connections) , on a specific interface card for the phone system. This will really speed up your connections, plus you can have upto 24 lines in the hunt group.<br>
2.Yes, make sure that the answering modems are the fastest that you can afford, and the Digiboard will love if you make sure all the modems are the same brand As well as the same lot ( this way the internal OS chips are the same internal coding).<br>
3. Note that there are several issues with the Outlook98; I had this on my internal computer and it was always MUCH slower than the better and even other FREE email software, as well as some at the time security issues with Outlook98. I saw somewhere in this forum a link to a free email software try it , possibly even before switching the phone lines.<br>
4. Try drilling down into the NT4.0 RAS and set the hardware to software settings to their highest settings, Also pay attention to the system resources. If the resources are falling below 80% add memory. NT doesn't like running low and can act strange even bellow the 85% mark.<br>
5. The reason for WFW and NT3.51 being faster is that they are not as code &quot;FAT&quot; as NT4.0 , you do lose some good connectity and advanced features when going this route. If you do stay this course then lose the Netbeui, and go the IPX/SPX ruote. Netbuei, is a network resource HOG. IPS/SPX chosen should also be set to 802.2 Not Autoselect then pump the connections up to 60, this will help a great deal.<br>
6. Canle modems are great, just not usefull on the road; aDSL is the same , if the reomte users are at the same spot all the time then going the xDSL route would be better in the long run, just make sure that the connection cost INCLUDES the ISP internet gateway also . The T-1 route is as we currently have the best route to go, without putting the service(if it's email) up on the web.<br>
7. The other reason that the PPP seems to be the slower way , is that you are being subjected the the traffic on the web; and haveing to wiat for the PPP tunnel to be connected and then all the security connections that come with it.<br>
<br>
I hope this rather long reply helps :-?<br>
drop me a line here as I'm checking in dailly know.<br>