f



Mapped Network Drives, USB Hard drives and "Not enough server storage is available to process this command"

Someone might find the following useful...

I've got two WinXP Pro PC on a 100base10 LAN and no server. Call them PC1
and PC2. I have "Mapped Network Drives" set up in both directions that have
worked well for some time.

Today I connected a new USB 2.0 External HD to PC1 and tried to set up a
"Mapped Network Drive" on PC2 to allow access. I kept getting the error:

"Not enough server storage is available to process this command".

I searching for this in the Help and Support System but got no hits. Google
found this thread "in another place"...
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/r1057008357

Which suggested:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;106167

...so it I've no idea why I couldn't find it via Help and Support? Anyway...

Looking in the event log on PC1 (!) I found an error with Event ID 2011 and
the info:

 "The servers configuration paramater "ipstacksize" is too small for the
server to use a local device. Please increase the value of this parameter.
Blah Blah...."

I fired up RegEdit and the ipstacksize key in the registry (on PC1) was set
to Hex b (Dec 11) so I increased it by 3 to 14 and rebooted both PC. After
that I could create the mapped drive OK.

Until this problem came my mapped drives (in both directions) have always
worked just fine. The "new factor" in my case was the USB 2.0 drive and I
suspect that is the "local device" that the event log entry mentions.

Delete "BOX" in email to get my real address.




0
CWatters
11/9/2003 2:01:18 PM
comp.pc.hardware.storage 8701 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

1 Replies
572 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

Started getting "Delayed Write Failed" messages...

This seems to be caused by excessive network traffic. The folder being
written to was a shared folder in the root of a drive.  I read that this can
cause a lot more network traffic (Somethng about all computers being
informed when a file changes)..

The solution was to "push the share down a level" eg create a sub folder and
only share that with the computer that needs access. To clarify...

Drive E: is a USB drive on ComputerA

Before:   I shared the folder E:\Backups and in that folder I had sub
folders E:\Backups\ComputerA and  E:\Backups\ComputerB

After:    I just shared the folder E:\Backups\ComputerB

Colin

"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:OMrrb.13780$G_3.472096@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> Someone might find the following useful...
>
> I've got two WinXP Pro PC on a 100base10 LAN and no server. Call them PC1
> and PC2. I have "Mapped Network Drives" set up in both directions that
have
> worked well for some time.
>
> Today I connected a new USB 2.0 External HD to PC1 and tried to set up a
> "Mapped Network Drive" on PC2 to allow access. I kept getting the error:
>
> "Not enough server storage is available to process this command".
>
> I searching for this in the Help and Support System but got no hits.
Google
> found this thread "in another place"...
> http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/r1057008357
>
> Which suggested:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;106167
>
> ..so it I've no idea why I couldn't find it via Help and Support?
Anyway...
>
> Looking in the event log on PC1 (!) I found an error with Event ID 2011
and
> the info:
>
>  "The servers configuration paramater "ipstacksize" is too small for the
> server to use a local device. Please increase the value of this parameter.
> Blah Blah...."
>
> I fired up RegEdit and the ipstacksize key in the registry (on PC1) was
set
> to Hex b (Dec 11) so I increased it by 3 to 14 and rebooted both PC. After
> that I could create the mapped drive OK.
>
> Until this problem came my mapped drives (in both directions) have always
> worked just fine. The "new factor" in my case was the USB 2.0 drive and I
> suspect that is the "local device" that the event log entry mentions.
>
> Delete "BOX" in email to get my real address.
>
>
>
>


0
CWatters
11/14/2003 8:35:41 AM
Reply: