VPN - Connection ultra slow with Apps

I have created a VPN connection on a 2003 server with basic VPN client on XP Pro. The thing I don't understand is why it is so unbelievably slow. I remember using a VPN a couple of years ago and not having near the slowdown.
The server side is running DHCP, DNS, File Server, IIS for page that is used like .01% of the time and now VPN. The CPU utilization is typically low. It isn't that the server is every pounding away.
I have the server gateway at 10.0.1.1 and DNS/VPN set to 10.0.1.150. I have a dual NIC in the server but have one NIC disabled. The other tech had both going but they were on the same subnet with one on 10.0.1.1 and the other on 10.0.1.3. I thought they should be on seperate subnets completely like 10.0.0.1 and 192.168.1.1 (example).

I can log in from the client using his Verizon wireless card which is typicall getting about 600Kbps down and 300Kbps up according to speakeasy. It could be less but it isn't bad. When logged onto the VPN I can simply copy a pretty good size file from a network folder to a local folder in decent time. An example would be a 7MB file was copied over in around 4 minutes. To me this isn't horrible and about on par with our FTP download speed from the same laptops/cards out in the field. The problem comes when opening a file. If I open say an excel spreadsheet it may take several minutes to open a 1.5MB spreadsheet. Then saving it is excrutiatingly slow. We do civil engineering with Land Desktop (autocad). The files are usual several MB. If I were to try to save one of those (if I had the time to actually wait on opening it) then it would take 10 minutes or lock up. Is there a way to increase the speed to make this tolerable? I did add the gateway to the etc/hosts file on the vpn connection tcp/ip settings on the client as well as setting the DNS settings to look to the DNS server on the 2003 server (10.0.1.150).
Also, will it help to activate the other NIC and if so then what would be the best way to configure it. ANY help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

Dont use VPNs, they are too slow by nature.

If you are running Windows 2003 Server, it would be worthwhile buying some Terminal Server licences to activate that part of 2003. Get a tech in or ask and i will help in setting up accounts for users to access the Terminal Server.
Terminal Server in my opinion is 90% of the reason to buy Server 2003. Its the best part. You have to buy Terminal Server licences (aka CALs) from Microsoft to enable this service to work though.

You will also have to have a static WAN IP from your ISP at the host end, and remote desktop's port forwarded to the LAN IP of the server in the Server's router. Not as hard as it sounds.

Users log in using the free and built into XP Remote Desktop client program, which can be downloaded from Microsoft for other OS versions. They log in using login details setup in thier Server account (on the Server), and the static (WAN) IP of the internet connection.

When you use Terminal server, multiple people can run a local session on the server and open files and programs as they could with a simple remote desktop connection, without interrupting each other or taking over the PC as happens in a basic Remote Desktop session. Meaning you work as if you were sitting at the server.

Because you dont actually download the files being used, only an image of the screen, the payload is dramatically reduced and hence much faster than VPN conns.

On terminal server you open files using the server's programs and an image of you working is sent to you, and not the file being used. The file is saved to the server. If you only need one user at a time to do this, simple remote desktop will do the same thing for free, but the Server cannot be used by anyone else while this is happening. Basic Remote Desktop is a remote control program.

Using Remote Desktop or Terminal Server, you can easily make your local drives availble in Windows Explorer or My Computer in your Server Session so you can transfer files if needed from client to server and visa versa. Generally it transfers a lot faster than VPN file transfers. VPNs....YUCK!

Also making sure your upload AND download internet speeds are as much as you can afford. If you say had a 512/128 DSL connection at both ends, the max transfer speed would be 128. It can only be sent at the slower upload speed, despite you being capable of downloading it faster at the other end.

SDSL is an option available that isnt too pricy any more where the upload/download speeds match and provide maximum throughput. A typical SDSL speed is 512/512. Hence a throughput speed of 512, 4 x faster than 512/128 ADSL.

For more info ask....

 

Dez,

Thanks a ton for you insight. The thing is I don't know if setting connections up as terminal server connections would help because the main applications do not run on the server. The company I work for is in Civil Engineering and we don't have a version of AutoCAD residing on the server side. They avoided doing this because they didn't want to bog the server down. I mean, we could be talking about files that are around 30MB (anywhere from 2MB to 110MB or more actually). When you start making changes on it the thing really starts using CPU cycles. From what it sounds like I think it would behoove us to maybe set up a desktop and let people VNC into it if they are out in the field and need to print something at the office or simply look at a drawing. Port forwarding on the router and simple VNC would do the trick if we delegated a PC for it. Does that seem like sound logic? I’m not sure if the owner will buy into it anyway. The logic here is to get blood from a turnip. That’s what I was trying to do with the VPN setup running with everything else on the Server. We have about 15 CALs so that shouldn’t be a problem but I just don’t know if that solution would be practical unless we set up another server just as an application server. I’m thinking that we can set up VPN for those at home but abandon the idea of the guys in the field using their wireless broadband cards. They seem fast but I’m just not thinking they are going to be acceptable. Any other thoughts now that I’ve filled you in a bit better? Thanks again !