I have a Cisco ASA 5505, and everything has seemed to function fine, however I have had problems with Quickbooks 2008 running super slow over the network (Samba) and narrowed it down to the Cisco box. Other Samba transfers seem to be pretty fast, and the Quickbooks file is not very large at all (<25 MB), and other Samba transfers seem to be fine. However, I'm not sure if Quickbooks uses another protocol or if there are other ports that need to be opened. Can anybody give me any clues on how to resolve or troubleshoot the problem or have any prior experience with running Quickbooks over a network?
Just in case someone else experiences the same problems...
The problem was actually with DNS entries, which Kyle Brandt and a few others helped me diagnose. I didn't originally think it had to do with Samba problems since I wasn't experiencing any latency when transferring files and my transfer speeds seemed fine. Firewalls were turned completely off and I didn't understand why mounting a drive as an IP address would have anything to do with name resolution. However, I discovered that Samba actually uses name resolution in its headers. Because of the way Quickbooks uses lots of samba requests, it didn't matter if the file size was big or not because it would try to do name resolution on each request, which made it take awhile to open. When I changed the appropriate things on our DNS, it loaded very fast. Another solution would be to edit the hosts file in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc to reflect the IP address of the Samba server.
I think you need either the SQL version, or maybe as a work around use Windows Remote Desktop sessions.
I have never been able to get quickbooks using SMB over a WAN to have a decent speed myself (But apparently this is not WAN, so never mind).
You might try watching the SMB traffic with wireshark to see if there is anything strange going on with that.
There might also be name resolution issues. If a file transfer is fast, but you notice lots of delays in a packet dump, that would make sense because there would be many requests vs one big request.