Aha.  You have hit on something when you said "possible culprit
applications to determine the system calls they are making (and hence
trigger the network traffic you see)." What system trace tools do you
suggest to help perform the analysis for these system calls?
Currently I am using multiple tools that provide some sort of
visibility and then cross-referencing the results.  I am also reducing
the number of apps as a process of elimination.  Or, to maybe put it
another way, does anyone have suggestions for ethical apps (OS, Word
processing, spreadsheet, browser, etc) ?  I have had way too many
experiences with apps acting otherwise in the background.
    
Thanks for any insight.
    
On 4/6/10, Martin Visser <
martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
    
Also remember in troubleshooting these
issue, that what is seen on the
    
    network (via Wireshark) is only part of the
picture. You should try to marry
    
    network traffic with activity or events
seen on the workstation. Sometime
    
    this will be invisible to you, however you
might need to workthrough the
    
    scripts or startup applications, as well
look at logs (or on windows
    
    machines,the event viewer). Sometimes you
might have opportunity to increase
    
    the log verbosity (to a debug level) or
even use system trace tools on
    
    possible culprit applications to determine
the system calls they are making
    
    (and hence trigger the network traffic you
see).
    
    
    
    As has been stated the client is choosing
to wait between server requests.
    
    The server always responds promptly, with
what it believes to be the right
    
    answer. The client seems not to be
satisfied and hence tries again. Not
    
    knowing what the client is making visible
to the user at this time (or its
    
    effect on the start process or
applications) makes further diagnosis on our
    
    part pretty much speculative.
    
    
    
    Regards, Martin
    
    
    
    MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx
    
    
    
    
    
    On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Kevin
Cullimore <kcullimo@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
    
    
    
    
      On 4/6/2010 7:14 AM, Ian Schorr wrote:
      
    
    
      
        On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Kevin
Cullimore<kcullimo@xxxxxxxxxx>
        
      
    
    
       wrote:
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      
        
          That data would appear to be
insufficient in isolation. To their
          
        
      
    
    
      
        
          unlikely credit, Microsoft maintains
decent documentation as far as
          
        
      
    
    
      
        
          their protocol stacks are concerned.
Conjoining both your capture and
          
        
      
    
    
      
        
          knowledgebase articles referencing
their networking client behavior
          
        
      
    
    
      
        
          could result in an argument more
difficult to deny/refute.
          
        
      
    
    
      
        
          
          
        
      
    
    
      
        As several people have mentioned, there
doesn't appear to be anything
        
      
    
    
      
        to take back to the CIFS server admin.
 The client appears to be 100%
        
      
    
    
      
        behind the search for the DLLs and the
timeout inbetween each attempt.
        
      
    
    
      
          The CIFS server isn't doing anything
to trigger this (except existing
        
      
    
    
      
        as a system serving a mapped drive) and
so can't be considered
        
      
    
    
      
        responsible for the problem.  The
problem exists on the 10.84.10.173
        
      
    
    
      
        PC and needs to be resolved there.
        
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      This may well be the best summary of the
actual problem. Often, one
      
    
    
      needs total buy-in and affirmation from
the sever admin in order to
      
    
    
      inspire those responsible for the client
software to take appropriate
      
    
    
      action (the "no other choice but to stop
practicing denial and fix the
      
    
    
      problem" scenario).
      
    
    
      
        -Ian
        
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      ___________________________________________________________________________
      
    
    
      
        Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing
list<wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        
      
    
    
      
        Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
        
      
    
    
      
        Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
        
      
    
    
      
                      mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        
      
    
    
      ?subject=unsubscribe
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      
        
        
      
    
    
      
      
    
    
      ___________________________________________________________________________
      
    
    
      Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list
<wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      
    
    
      Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
      
    
    
      Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
      
    
    
                  mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
      
    
    
      ?subject=unsubscribe
      
    
    
      
      
    
    
    
    
    
-- 
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.
    
             ~Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <
wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: 
https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
            mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe