Recommended Posts

I have a local network setup using a standard 192.168.1.x range. there's no domain involved. there is no hardware firewall involved - only an unmanaged switch.

there are 4 machines on this subnet - Win7, Synology NAS, Server 2008 R2, Server 2003

i have 2 shared folders on the NAS which can be accessed easily by the Win7 and Server 2003 machines, but not by the R2 machine. fwiw, the R2 machine can access shares on both the Win7 and 2003 machines, just not the NAS.

When i try to map a network drive (a shared folder on the NAS) through Windows Explorer on the R2 box, i type in the appropriate creds, and about 10 seconds later, the credentials box pops up again (over and over.) If i try to use cmd to map the drive, i get "System error 58 has occurred. The specified server cannot perform the requested operation." Also, Synology has a product called the Synology Assistant. Within this program, i can [try to] map a drive using their wizard. This results in the same Error 58. I've contacted Synology support, and they were unable to rectify the issue.

Again, the win7 and 2003 boxes can access the shared folders on the NAS. The 2008 R2 box cannot.

After searching the internet for a fix, nothing has worked for me. I've tried uninstalling MSE, numerous Group Policy settings, numerous registry tweaks. i've also disabled the windows firewall and tried various tweaks to the network adapter's properties. nothing has worked.

I'm not sure where else to go w/ this.

no problems there typing in the computername\userid and password? if that is the case just use that to auth with.

i cant use the method you described. the NAS has no idea about the server's local users - only the users assigned in the NAS itself. (plus, i've tried that already) :p

you fail to understand what I am talking about....let me try to explain better...

device type : network name

server : server1

nas : storage

On the server you have no user passwords a user called owner and on the nas you have a user called user1 and a password of password.

when on server 1 and logged on with the user called owner and you want to access a share on the nas you open a run prompt and type in the following

\\storage\share1

now it prompts you for a username and password you type in:

storage\user1

password

--------------------

You can see in this example I am not using the user on the server for any type of authentication.

I have no clue what you have named your nas box so you will need to go into the network properties of your nas box to find out what it is called if you didn't rename it.

and what you described does not work. i continually get prompted to enter my credentials for the NAS. again, the NAS logs that the authentication was successful; however, windows just constantly re-prompts for the creds. if i do the same thing you mentioned in CMD, using "net use" i get the Error 58.

this same thing does NOT happen on the win7 or 2003 machines.

Thanks sc302. i've already tried that, but it didnt help either :s i had it set to ?Send LM & NTLM responses - use NTLMv2..." and it didnt work. i switched to ?Send LM & NTLM responses? and that didnt work either.

server 2008 isn't liking something, and there isn't much we can do further at this level. perhaps getting a network sniff and seeing what is transpiring on the network layer can lead to a more definitive cause if you are infact authing to the nas box and are getting logs stating that you have been granted access but continue to get access denied.

if it is group policy you can see what gp changes have been made by running rsop.msc at a run prompt you will be able to drill down through anything that has a policy change. if nothing is listed there are no policy changes (local or through a dc).

And what account are you running with on the 2k8 box? I do not believe I have ever seen that error before. But sounds more like the account your using does not have the ability to map

When you keep getting prompted -- are you trying to map it, or just browse it? Sounds like mapping to me

"When i try to map a network drive"

Vs trying to map -- just access it

run, \\nasname -- put in your creds, do you get access now?

if it is group policy you can see what gp changes have been made by running rsop.msc at a run prompt you will be able to drill down through anything that has a policy change. if nothing is listed there are no policy changes (local or through a dc).

let me look into that this morning. thanks!

And what account are you running with on the 2k8 box? I do not believe I have ever seen that error before. But sounds more like the account your using does not have the ability to map

When you keep getting prompted -- are you trying to map it, or just browse it? Sounds like mapping to me

"When i try to map a network drive"

Vs trying to map -- just access it

run, \\nasname -- put in your creds, do you get access now?

I've tried 3 different windows user logins - all of them in the local Admin group.

i get constantly prompted for my creds whether i try to browse (start, run) or map the drive in Explorer.

So when i try to map a drive in CMD, i get the Error Code 58 message. This same error code occurs in the Synology Assistant.

post-34502-0-45056500-1334580863.jpg

post-34502-0-32521400-1334580858.jpg

Again, you do not use windows logins....you will never auth with windows logins. You might as well try logging in with the user name of jesus and the password I am god, it will yield the same results.

You need to login with a user that was created on the nas or the nas admin user. You may have to use the nas computer name (which you have not mentioned what it was) in the auth method with the nas admin user name.

I feel bad because 2 years ago when I was a network administration student we had the same issue when we were building our end projects for class. I have a billion (and one) documents stored from all the stuff me and the other guy (who was the top of the class with me) and we DID figure out how to fix it, it's just after graduation I never got a job in the field (very little up here in South Dakota, and my wife did not want to move) so a lot of the stuff I've forgotten. I can't even remember where I stored all of the crap we read to try to fix the issue. ?Send LM & NTLM responses - use NTLMv2..." does sound VERY familiar though. If I remember right, those older NAS systems do not play well and there is some policy you need to change dealing with that. I feel horrible, it's on the tip of my damn tongue but I just can't spit it out... Lemme keep rolling it around my head for awhile and I'll try to get back to you.

Again, you do not use windows logins....you will never auth with windows logins. You might as well try logging in with the user name of jesus and the password I am god, it will yield the same results.

You need to login with a user that was created on the nas or the nas admin user. You may have to use the nas computer name (which you have not mentioned what it was) in the auth method with the nas admin user name.

again, im not using the windows login to try to access the NAS. Budman asked about the windows user i was trying, implying that it's a group policy issue.

just a quick summary, as i still believe this is a GP issue, but i simply cant narrow it down.

  • i cannot access a shared folder on the NAS from Server 2008 R2
  • i can access the shared folder on the NAS from Server 2003 and Windows 7
  • i can access folders shared on either Server 2003 or Windows 7 from 2008 R2
  • The shared folder on the NAS uses an account local to the NAS - not tied to any specific computer, server, or domain
  • there is no domain involved at all

and thanks to all that have been helping me so far :beer:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Glad these prices are starting to come down, but that is still crazy. I bought the 2TB 9100 Pro (slightly more expensive version with PCIe 5.0) last year for $240.
    • The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months by Sayan Sen Yesterday, we covered a really good deal wherein you can get a 4TB TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 NVMe PCIe Gen4 SSD for a low price of just $400 with a special discount coupon. That's just $100 per TB, making it a very good offer during these hard times. The deal is still live, so you can check it out in its dedicated article here if you do not want to miss out. Meanwhile, if you don't have that kind of budget but still wish to buy an SSD for a good price, the 2TB variant of the TeamGroup SSD at $280 its lowest price in over three months. Meanwhile, those seeking 2TB but faster performance can check out Samsung's 990 PRO, which has hit the lowest price also in the last quarter or so, as it's on sale for $370 (purchase links under the specs table down below). Thus, you want a faster drive, get the 990 Pro, or you want more capacity, grab the TeamGroup 4TB linked in the first para. The 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 2TB Samsung 990 PRO 2TB Interface PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 1.4 PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 M.2 2280 Controller InnoGrit Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC 3D TLC DRAM Cache None (HMB supported) 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 5,000 MB/s 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 4,500 MB/s 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 600,000 IOPS Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 700,000 IOPS Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,300 TBW 1,200 TBW MTBF 3,000,000 hours 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink Patented Graphene Heat Spreader No Get them at the links below: Samsung 990 PRO SSD 2TB (MZ-V9P2T0B/AM): $369.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 2TB SSD (TM8FFE002T0C129): $279.99 (Sold by TeamGroup, Shipped by Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • If you can't spell a simple word that 2nd graders learn, your entire argument is suspect.
    • And here goes the "Won't someone think of the children" brigade. Get stuffed mate. This has NOTHING to do with making the internet safe. It's about tracking adults, spying on your online activity, and sending the boys around when they don't like something you post. Also, again, parliament have voted TWICE against this, and Starmer is going ahead anyway. THAT is anti-democratic bullsh**. They will use this law to track you, they will use this law to control you, and they will use this law to punish you if they don't like what you do, even if it's legal. And your data? Say bye bye to that. It'll be on the darkweb in weeks. I'm not some rando online. I've been an IT professional for 40 years, many of it in security. I know exactly what this means and what will happen to your data. I do not consent and I will not comply.
    • "...but it may not be Microsoft's fault" seems like a reasonable way to tease what is going on without leaving the user with a false impression that an update is the problem. A title isn't a summery, it is meant to entice the user to read the article. It should not contain a misleading premise; which this title does not. You could maybe complain that the first paragraph should have included that detail. The writing style popularized over 100 years ago in newspapers will cover the most important information as soon as possible with details and nuance added later; the idea being that with each new paragraph you have less of the reader's focus.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      520
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!