net use works 8 times out of 9

[Wowbagger]

On nine XP home/pro machines in the office I just ran the following command
from within a CMD window:

net use q: \\computer\backup$ password /user:username /persistent:yes

On 8 of the machines the command completed correctly

On the 9th machine it reported the path could not be found

On #9 when I executed

net use q: \\000.000.000.000\backup$ password /user:username /persistent:yes

It mapped the drive without an issue.

Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other issues are
noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.

Thanks

[Shenan Stanley]

Wowbagger wrote:
> On nine XP home/pro machines in the office I just ran the following
> command from within a CMD window:
>
> net use q: \\computer\backup$ password /user:username
> /persistent:yes
> On 8 of the machines the command completed correctly
>
> On the 9th machine it reported the path could not be found
>
> On #9 when I executed
>
> net use q: \\000.000.000.000\backup$ password /user:username
> /persistent:yes
> It mapped the drive without an issue.
>
> Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other
> issues are noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.

Are they all getting their DNS from the DHCP server?
Could one have it entered manually?

Also - is NetBIOS over TCP/IP enabled/disabled on said 9th machine?

You should (just to be consistent) use the fully qualified name.. in other
words..

net use x: \\computer.domain.com\sharename /user:username password

That will be more likely to work all the time than \\computer\sharename.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

[Kerry Brown]

Wowbagger wrote:
> On nine XP home/pro machines in the office I just ran the following
> command from within a CMD window:
>
> net use q: \\computer\backup$ password /user:username /persistent:yes
>
> On 8 of the machines the command completed correctly
>
> On the 9th machine it reported the path could not be found
>
> On #9 when I executed
>
> net use q: \\000.000.000.000\backup$ password /user:username
> /persistent:yes
> It mapped the drive without an issue.
>
> Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other issues
> are noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.
>
> Thanks

What OS is the computer with the share running. You may be running into the
limit of ten connections with XP Pro.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.VistaHelp.ca

[Wowbagger]

"Kerry Brown" *a*m> wrote in message
...

>> Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other issues
>> are noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> What OS is the computer with the share running. You may be running into
> the limit of ten connections with XP Pro.

The system with the share is running XP Pro. There are a total of 10
computers in the office, including the one hosting the share so I'm
definitely under the limit. Also, I am able to map the share using the IP
address.

[Malke]

"Wowbagger" <none> wrote:

> "Kerry Brown" *a*m> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other issues
>>> are noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.
>>>
>>
>> What OS is the computer with the share running. You may be running into
>> the limit of ten connections with XP Pro.
>
> The system with the share is running XP Pro. There are a total of 10
> computers in the office, including the one hosting the share so I'm
> definitely under the limit. Also, I am able to map the share using the IP
> address.

Actually, you aren't under the limit. The concurrent inbound connections
limitation is for *connections* and not *computers*. Each computer can make
multiple connections to your pseudo-server. Here is information about the
limitation:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314882 - Inbound connections limit in XP

concurrent connections:

5 for XP Home
10 for XP Pro/Tablet/MCE
49 for SBS 2000
74 for SBS 2003
Unlimited for full Server O/Ses

You should replace the pseudo-server with either an MS server operating
system (Win2003 or SBS) or, if the machine only acts as a file server and
doesn't need to run Windows programs directly, you could use a Linux distro
instead.

This may not be your issue since you are able to map the share via IP, but I
don't have an answer for that. You may want to post in one of the
networking newsgroups instead.

http://aumha.org/nntp.htm - list of MS newsgroups

Malke
--
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic"

[Kerry Brown]

Wowbagger wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" *a*m> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Any ideas why I couldn't map using the computername? No other
>>> issues are noted with the system, all are configured for DHCP.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> What OS is the computer with the share running. You may be running
>> into the limit of ten connections with XP Pro.
>
> The system with the share is running XP Pro. There are a total of 10
> computers in the office, including the one hosting the share so I'm
> definitely under the limit. Also, I am able to map the share using
> the IP address.

As Malke has posted sometimes one computer can use more than one connection.
Mounting the share via an IP address bypasses NETBIOS resolution which may
account for the anomaly you are seeing. In my experience once you reach six
or seven pc's you start seeing intermittent denied connections with XP Pro
if all the computers frequently access a share. If the same computer is
sharing a printer you will have even more problems. Possibly you could
create a logon scrippt on each computer that maps a drive to the share using
the IP address. I believe you will still run into problems as programs can
create new connections. You should install a server OS on the computer that
has the shared resources. I highly recommend SBS server 2003. It has many
features other than just allowing more computers to connect to the share.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx

It is reasonably priced for a Microsoft server product. If you are
technically inclined you could install a Linux server. The initial cost is
much less but the learning curve can be steep. The lowest cost alternative
is to install a landrive. They are an external hard drive with an ethernet
connection. Most of them run an embedded samba server and format the drive
in FAT32 format so have a limitation of a maximum file size of 4GB. If you
can live with this limitation they are a good alternative. I have used the
following enclosure with good results.

http://www.mediasonic.ca/product_spec/ENCLOSURES/LAN/HD9-U2.html

If you go with the landrive I recommend getting two drives and use one for
backup purposes.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.VistaHelp.ca

[Wowbagger]

"Malke" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, you aren't under the limit. The concurrent inbound connections
> limitation is for *connections* and not *computers*. Each computer can
> make
> multiple connections to your pseudo-server. Here is information about the
> limitation:

Does each connection appear as a separate session?

[Malke]

"Wowbagger" <none> wrote:

> "Malke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Actually, you aren't under the limit. The concurrent inbound connections
>> limitation is for *connections* and not *computers*. Each computer can
>> make
>> multiple connections to your pseudo-server. Here is information about the
>> limitation:
>
> Does each connection appear as a separate session?

The MS Knowledge Base article (link previously provided) describes it very
well.

Malke
--
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic"