ability to browse shared folders is one-way on a WinXP peer-peer network

[Ann]

Thanks for this tip - I was about to post when I saw your response. Just the
adrenaline rush from the mere *hope* of a fix was enough to pick me up this
afternoon!

.... but alas! the registry key that you mentioned was already set to 0 at
both (A) and (B) machines running WinXP Pro.

I had not disabled the Guest account. Your post has got me thinking that I
should carefully check through the Local Policies Security Options using the
Group Policy editor in case some settings that I have forgotten became
undone due to the OS repair or SP update.

~ ~ ~ some more info based on today's troubleshooting ~ ~ ~

In case it was not obvious I am not using WinXP's network config wizard and
I am not using Simplified File sharing. I do require users to log on with a
password if they are to enjoy network file sharing.

I have double checked the network configuration at both WinXP computers
today and everything appears to be correct there.

It appears that I can reproduce this problem for certain shared folders on
(B), meaning that (A) can access most, but not all, shares on (B). Which
leads me to believe that my problem centers around permissions/ACL's
associated with each shared folder....

.... arghhhh! home life was not meant to be this troublesome. &(




"Brendan" <bgalloway2@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1fcf01c33ecf$2eee7e00$a401280a@phx.gbl...

> I recently had this same problem, but a post by Ramesh
> yesterday solved it, I have pasted his post...
>
> If you want to enable advanced file-system and sharing
> security, you must disable the ForceGuest registry setting
> by performing the following steps:
>
> Start a registry editor (e.g., regedit.exe).
> Navigate to the
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Lsa
> registry subkey.
> Double-click forceguest, set it to 0, then click OK.
> Restart the computer for the change to take effect.
>
> If you disable the Guest account but enable the ForceGuest
> setting, remote connections will fail, regardless of what
> username and password the user passes in--even if these
> credentials are valid.
>
>
>

> >-----Original Message-----
> >I have the same problem in that when I upgraded from
> >WIN2Kpro to WINXP it eliminated NetBEUI. I have a small
> >LAN which uses Win2Kpro, WIN982nd, and WINXP. I had no
> >problems accessing the WIN98 PC from the WIN2kPro LapTop.
> >Upgraded to XP and now get the same message the earlier
> >author got, about can not access shared folder. It was
> >and still is shared, and correctly configured to access
> >and was working. What did XP do when it installed that I
> >can not now access the WIN98 pc. Suspect problem may be
> >associated with the fact XP does not support NetBEUI. Any
> >ideas appreciated.

> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>YUKK sorry about the HTML tags!
> >>
> >>I have three PC's on a home LAN. Two (A & B) have WinXP

> >Pro installed while the third (C) has Win98se. The router
> >is a Linksys 4-port switch. The LAN protocol is TCP/IP
> >and I assign static IP's in the 192.168.x.y range. File
> >and printer sharing is enabled for A, B and C. I recently
> >upgraded the MB, CPU & Graphics card on (A) and was
> >pleasantly surprised by how smoothly the reinstall/repair
> >of WinXP went after that operation. I used the Windows
> >Update web site to bring the repaired OS current with
> >latest service packs and so forth. I recall stumbling
> >across the need to run the LAN connection [Repair]
> >operation in order for (A) to successfully access the
> >shared printer on (B).

> >>
> >>The only problem with WinXP that I can detect after this

> >upgrade of hardware is that (B) and (C) can view (A) in
> >their network places and can even view the shared folders
> >on (A) but they cannot browse those shared folders on (A)
> >or copy files to those shared folders on (A). In
> >contrast, (A) can browse and copy files to/from either
> >(B) or (C) !

> >>
> >>The error message received at (B) when I attempt to

> >browse one of the shared folders on (A) is:

> >>
> >>\\(A)\shared folder is not accessible. You might not

> >have permission to use this network resource. Contact the
> >administrator of this server to find out if you have
> >access permissions.

> >>Not enough server storage is available to process this

> >command.

> >>[OK]
> >>
> >>A very similar message appears at the w98se machine when

> >attempting to browse a shared folder at (A).

> >>
> >>I verify the permissions on the shared folder to

> >be "full control" by "Everyone"

> >>
> >>Of course, prior to the upgrade the

> >visibility/browsability was bidirectional.

> >>
> >>I've tried unsharing a folder on (A) and then set up

> >sharing all over again but this gave me no success.

> >>Similarly, I have tried, from (B), mapping a new network

> >drive on (A) and a similar error message "Not enough
> >server storage is available to process this command."
> >appears.

> >>
> >>I've searched the MS KB and this site as well as

> >miscellaneous other help sites and have come up empty
> >handed wrt any solution to this problem.

> >>
> >>All three PC's are configured for dual boot although I

> >cannot imagine how that might be a factor.

> >>
> >>At this stage I am open to any and all advice you might

> >offer.

> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>

> >.
> >

[Ann]

..... not so elementary my dear watson!

REFERENCE:
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;106167[/url]
and for clear/crisp registry edit instructions:
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q177078[/url]

This is one of those annoying occasions where feeding the error message into
the MS KB search engine does not yield either of the above two KB articles
which quote the very same error message!

The KEY WORDS in the error messages that I was seeing were the last line:
from WinXP:
Not enough server storage is available to process this command.
from Win98se:
Not enough memory to complete transaction. Close some applications and
retry.

THE FIX:
check registry key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\LanmanServer\Parameters
for an IRPStackSize value. In my case that value was 11 (decimal) and MS KB
advises WinXP users to increase it by 3 however I chose to increase it to
the WinXP default value of 15. (other OS users should check the KB article
since the default appears to be different) (This was done on both WinXP
machines in my network.)

A reboot of both machines following this registry edit and the majority of
network shared folders were once again accessible. I needed to delete a few
and recreate them but adding these new network places went smoothly after
this fix.

KUDOS:
Acknowledgement to Hans-Georg Michna who had responded on this newsgroup
with helpful advice to others with related network problems and who had a
web page that directed me to the above two MS KB articles:
[url]http://www.michna.com/kb/WxNotEnoughServerStorage.htm[/url]

ROOT CAUSE:
I don't know. Norton AV appears to be implicated but I can't access the
relevant Symantec web site knowledge base article. My guess is that a
stacksize of 11 was optimal up until the point that I introduced the newer
hardware to the network. Maybe there are more levels required in the stack
due to one of the many new features found on this newly introduced MB (the
RTL8201BL PHYceiver chip being the most probable candidate in my mind).
Maybe a clean install of XP would have resulted in the default value of 15
being assigned to this parameter. Maybe, maybe ..... !

OTHER REFERENCES
for the very curious read about IRPstacksize (albeit from an NT perspective)
at:
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;102967[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;97599[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;102974[/url]
finally Norton AntiVirus seems to be implicated but the Symantec web server
is down so I can't access the following referenced URL to learn more:
[url]http://service1.symantec.com/support/nav.nsf/552ba2f7636bedf088256818006f78bf/4f7d50c8b753a25788256962005ce9ac?opendocument&high light=0,enough,server,storage[/url]


"Ann" <byte_bucket@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e$Dd8htPDHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> Thanks for this tip - I was about to post when I saw your response. Just

the

> adrenaline rush from the mere *hope* of a fix was enough to pick me up

this

> afternoon!
>
> ... but alas! the registry key that you mentioned was already set to 0 at
> both (A) and (B) machines running WinXP Pro.
>
> I had not disabled the Guest account. Your post has got me thinking that

I

> should carefully check through the Local Policies Security Options using

the

> Group Policy editor in case some settings that I have forgotten became
> undone due to the OS repair or SP update.
>
> ~ ~ ~ some more info based on today's troubleshooting ~ ~ ~
>
> In case it was not obvious I am not using WinXP's network config wizard

and

> I am not using Simplified File sharing. I do require users to log on with

a

> password if they are to enjoy network file sharing.
>
> I have double checked the network configuration at both WinXP computers
> today and everything appears to be correct there.
>
> It appears that I can reproduce this problem for certain shared folders on
> (B), meaning that (A) can access most, but not all, shares on (B). Which
> leads me to believe that my problem centers around permissions/ACL's
> associated with each shared folder....
>
> ... arghhhh! home life was not meant to be this troublesome. &(
>
>
>
>
> "Brendan" <bgalloway2@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1fcf01c33ecf$2eee7e00$a401280a@phx.gbl...

> > I recently had this same problem, but a post by Ramesh
> > yesterday solved it, I have pasted his post...
> >
> > If you want to enable advanced file-system and sharing
> > security, you must disable the ForceGuest registry setting
> > by performing the following steps:
> >
> > Start a registry editor (e.g., regedit.exe).
> > Navigate to the
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Lsa
> > registry subkey.
> > Double-click forceguest, set it to 0, then click OK.
> > Restart the computer for the change to take effect.
> >
> > If you disable the Guest account but enable the ForceGuest
> > setting, remote connections will fail, regardless of what
> > username and password the user passes in--even if these
> > credentials are valid.
> >
> >
> >

> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >I have the same problem in that when I upgraded from
> > >WIN2Kpro to WINXP it eliminated NetBEUI. I have a small
> > >LAN which uses Win2Kpro, WIN982nd, and WINXP. I had no
> > >problems accessing the WIN98 PC from the WIN2kPro LapTop.
> > >Upgraded to XP and now get the same message the earlier
> > >author got, about can not access shared folder. It was
> > >and still is shared, and correctly configured to access
> > >and was working. What did XP do when it installed that I
> > >can not now access the WIN98 pc. Suspect problem may be
> > >associated with the fact XP does not support NetBEUI. Any
> > >ideas appreciated.
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>YUKK sorry about the HTML tags!
> > >>
> > >>I have three PC's on a home LAN. Two (A & B) have WinXP
> > >Pro installed while the third (C) has Win98se. The router
> > >is a Linksys 4-port switch. The LAN protocol is TCP/IP
> > >and I assign static IP's in the 192.168.x.y range. File
> > >and printer sharing is enabled for A, B and C. I recently
> > >upgraded the MB, CPU & Graphics card on (A) and was
> > >pleasantly surprised by how smoothly the reinstall/repair
> > >of WinXP went after that operation. I used the Windows
> > >Update web site to bring the repaired OS current with
> > >latest service packs and so forth. I recall stumbling
> > >across the need to run the LAN connection [Repair]
> > >operation in order for (A) to successfully access the
> > >shared printer on (B).
> > >>
> > >>The only problem with WinXP that I can detect after this
> > >upgrade of hardware is that (B) and (C) can view (A) in
> > >their network places and can even view the shared folders
> > >on (A) but they cannot browse those shared folders on (A)
> > >or copy files to those shared folders on (A). In
> > >contrast, (A) can browse and copy files to/from either
> > >(B) or (C) !
> > >>
> > >>The error message received at (B) when I attempt to
> > >browse one of the shared folders on (A) is:
> > >>
> > >>\\(A)\shared folder is not accessible. You might not
> > >have permission to use this network resource. Contact the
> > >administrator of this server to find out if you have
> > >access permissions.
> > >>Not enough server storage is available to process this
> > >command.
> > >>[OK]
> > >>
> > >>A very similar message appears at the w98se machine when
> > >attempting to browse a shared folder at (A).
> > >>
> > >>I verify the permissions on the shared folder to
> > >be "full control" by "Everyone"
> > >>
> > >>Of course, prior to the upgrade the
> > >visibility/browsability was bidirectional.
> > >>
> > >>I've tried unsharing a folder on (A) and then set up
> > >sharing all over again but this gave me no success.
> > >>Similarly, I have tried, from (B), mapping a new network
> > >drive on (A) and a similar error message "Not enough
> > >server storage is available to process this command."
> > >appears.
> > >>
> > >>I've searched the MS KB and this site as well as
> > >miscellaneous other help sites and have come up empty
> > >handed wrt any solution to this problem.
> > >>
> > >>All three PC's are configured for dual boot although I
> > >cannot imagine how that might be a factor.
> > >>
> > >>At this stage I am open to any and all advice you might
> > >offer.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>.
> > >>
> > >.
> > >

>
>