Windows Share authentication latency

[ClackPony]

We have 2 freenas in our test lab: 9.2.1 and 9.1.1. For our 9.2.1, when we want to access our windows share, there aren't any issues. We enter the password and bang! We see our folders. But for 9.1.1, it's another story. We always need to wait that the green bar in the address bar of windows explorer is about half full before it works. We see the authentication window, but even with the right credentials, the authentication windows repops like the credentials where wrong. We press enter several times and it works when the bar is about half full. While it is a minor issue, it's a bother I'd like to solve. I've searched for someone with a similar issue, but can't seem to find any. I do not think I'm the only one, am I?
Thank you!

 

[SweetAndLow]

Slowness can be caused by hostname lookup which can be turned off in the GUI. Another thing that could cause slowness are dos attributes which can be fixed by searching for it here. Are you sure you can log in as that user? Did you create a file and confirm that the owner is the logged in user? What are the hardware spec of these boxes?

 

[cyberjock]

You seem to know how to fix it... so why not upgrade to 9.2.1 or newer?

 

[ClackPony]

Several reasons. Mostly productivity as this box can't be stopped for a long time, and access to the physical box (I know, that sounds silly, but the lab is a mess, I admit). Eventually, we'll need to upgrade, and be able too, but for now, we can't. I'll try stopping reverse name lookup.

 

[ClackPony]

Slowness can be caused by hostname lookup which can be turned off in the GUI. Another thing that could cause slowness are dos attributes which can be fixed by searching for it here. Are you sure you can log in as that user? Did you create a file and confirm that the owner is the logged in user? What are the hardware spec of these boxes?

Yes, I'm sure. The issue isn't that I can't log in. It's just that I can't on the first try. Without changing the password, it works after a few enter press.
Specs aren't impressive. A core duo @ 2.66GHz, 3551MB of non-ecc memory and one gigabit interface. It sucksm but that's all we are allowed to have...

 

[cyberjock]

Sounds like two problems.. can't upgrade and hardware that is below the minimum.

So it seems the problems are understood. :P

 

[ClackPony]

I agree. Sadly, they can't be solved. Welp, I'll deal with it, but I'll try to convince management to provide us a budget to protect our data. However, since we're just a test lab, I higly doubt we'll get anything. You wouldn't have 1k$ to lend, would you? XD thank you for the help anyway!

 

[cyberjock]

Have you considered a different OS? Maybe ZFS on Linux or something? Something that you doesn't have system requirements that exceed your hardware.

 

[ClackPony]

We have not. I didn't know this existed. It could be usefull. However, we do not have the time, nor the expertise to work on that right now. This may eventually be a good project.