New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 916720 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 850893
Owner: ----
Closed: Dec 27
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

Changing location of Profile.pb causes massive NIC bandwidth usage

Reported by 9601hask...@gmail.com, Dec 19

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.80 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Enable roaming profiles in GPO
2. Enable alternate location for profile in GPO, and either specify a UNC path or mapped drive on a remote Windows server
3.  Install Chrome on Windows 10 desktop managed by above GPO's
3. Launch Chrome and monitor network bandwidth usage of chrome.exe process which will spike to 100mbs+ every few seconds
4. Look at profile.pb on remote server and notice that it constantly changes between a 0kb file and a 100mb+ file.

What is the expected behavior?
Expected behavior is that the profile.pb file behaves as it does when kept on a local machine.  Remains relatively small and only changes slightly over time.

What went wrong?
When stored on a file server, bandwidth spikes dramatically, as does the size of the profile.pb file

Did this work before? No 

Chrome version: 71.0.3578.80  Channel: stable
OS Version: 10.0
Flash Version:
 
Labels: Needs-Triage-M71
Cc: phanindra.mandapaka@chromium.org
Components: -Services>Sync Enterprise
Labels: Triaged-ET TE-NeedsTriageFromHYD
Thanks for filing the issue!

As per comment #0, issue seems to be related to roaming profiles in GPO, hence routing this to Inhouse team for further triaging the issue. Hence adding TE-NeedsTriageFromHYD label to it.

Thanks..!
Cc: pastarmovj@chromium.org
Labels: -TE-NeedsTriageFromHYD
Julien, could you please take a look into this issue.
Thanks..!
Mergedinto: 850893
Status: Duplicate (was: Unconfirmed)
Hello 9601haskell,

I noticed you are also commented on 850893. As discussed there some changes were made in the last 2 months that should have appeared in Chrome 72 or 73. Can you please do a test if the new version of Chrome fixes your issue as well?

I will mark this bug as a duplicate on the other one as they are discussing the same issue.

Sign in to add a comment