locked
The specified network name is no longer available RRS feed

  • Question

  • I'm trying to transfer files from my windows 7 machine to my self built windows home server (old dell 4550). The WHS is the default install except Whiis add-on is installed. I also installed and uninstalled firefly media server add-on, and added two external usb 2.0 hard drives

    When I try to copy files, they will start copying then hang until I get this error "There is a problem accessing \server\folder"

    When I try to copy via command line, it will copy 2-3 files then say "the specified network name is no longer available" then copy a few more and repeat. this happens with the copy and xcopy command.

    I running a 10/100 netgear 24port switch (unmanaged) and linksys WRT54GL flashed with the tomato firmware. cat5e cables.

    I have already tried all the basics I could think of like changing cables ports making sure both NICs are set to auto negotiate. Mapped the share as a drive. updated all drivers. uninstalled and reinstalled drivers.

    Any body have any ideas?

     

    PS I have another thread here with some screen shots
    http://forum.wegotserved.com/index.php?/topic/10531-network-error/page__gopid__63240&#entry63240
    Monday, October 26, 2009 6:01 PM

All replies

  • Please try setting the NIC(s) to fixed 100base Tx full duplex
    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:27 AM
    Moderator
  • I tried what you said, and I'm still having the same problem. I tried 10mbs full duplex as well, and tried with large send disabled. Nothing worked.

    I dont know if this will help or not, I ran a copy test and the results are below. seems like there is always a perf problem at the same times.

    Oct27, 09:10:47, 463ms, 86.39 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:10:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:47, 521ms, 76.78 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:11:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:17, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:12:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:17, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:13:57, 532ms, 75.19 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:14:07, 563ms, 71.05 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:14:17, 579ms, 69.08 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:14:27, 23126ms, 1.73 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:14:51, 607ms, 65.9 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:14:57, 561ms, 71.3 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:15:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:17, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:16:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:07, 532ms, 75.19 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:17:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:17, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:37, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:18:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:07, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:17, 521ms, 76.78 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:19:57, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:27, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:20:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:27, 537ms, 74.49 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:21:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:17, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:47, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:22:57, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:07, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:37, 528ms, 75.76 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:23:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:07, 460ms, 86.96 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:27, 460ms, 86.96 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:24:57, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:07, 460ms, 86.96 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:17, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:37, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:47, 535ms, 74.77 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:25:57, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:07, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:17, 460ms, 86.96 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:27, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:37, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:47, 458ms, 87.34 MBit/s
    Oct27, 09:26:57, 459ms, 87.15 MBit/s

    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:32 PM
  • I tried what you said, and I'm still having the same problem. I tried 10mbs full duplex as well, and tried with large send disabled. Nothing worked.

    I dont know if this will help or not, I ran a copy test and the results are below. seems like there is always a perf problem at the same times.
    By "at the same times" do you mean at the same time of day? That would point to other periodic processes on your server, your client computer, or elsewhere on your network.

    And by the way, I'm not sure what tool you used to get those timings, but if xxxms represents network latency, you have network issues. 1/2 second average latency inside your network is horrible...

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:41 PM
    Moderator
  • I used a tool called "Performance Pinging" its testing copying a 5MByte file across the network. I didnt mean same time of day, when I looked at the logs about about every 12th line the performance drops.
    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:31 PM
  • Hmm. "About every 12th line" isn't borne out by the log snippet you posted, I'm afraid. :) But that's not really important, all it does is establish that it's a sporadic problem, not consistent. And I think it's likely to be a hardware problem.

    I see a couple of possibilities. Most likely is still network issues of some sort. That could be bad cabling, a failing switch, driver issues, NIC issues, etc. (You get the picture.) The other possibility is that you have a problem with the storage subsystem on either your client computer or your server.

    Let's start with the storage subsystem on your server. Remove the two USB drives from the storage pool and retry your timing tests. If all is well, this probably means a problem with either the USB controller(s) on your motherboard, or with the USB drive(s) you're using. So install an internal drive (not a USB drive, but if your server supports eSATA you could use an eSATA external drive), add it to the storage pool, and try again. 

    If the storage subsystem doesn't pan out, then you can try debugging your network. I would start by connecting a client computer and your server directly, with a relatively short cable that you know is good. Configure both to either A) obtain an IP address via DHCP, or B) use a static IP address, gateway, etc. you've configured. It's important to use the same method for both, and I would configure for DHCP, as that way the two computers will use APIPA and are guaranteed to be on the same subnet. Now see what happens. Work your way through the rest of your network hardware the same way; get a couple of inexpensive NICs (I like Intel based NICs, but as long as you avoid RealTek you should be okay) and use them instead of probable on-board NICs, replace cables, etc.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:06 PM
    Moderator
  • Ok, so I just figured out that I can copy a 3 gig file with no problems from the WHS to the client machine. But when I try to copy the same file from the client machine to the WHS, it errors.

    Ken, Thanks a ton for all of your help so far.
    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
  • Ok, so I just figured out that I can copy a 3 gig file with no problems from the WHS to the client machine. But when I try to copy the same file from the client machine to the WHS, it errors.

    Ken, Thanks a ton for all of your help so far.

    Which OS version of drivers are you using for your server (2003, XP, or something else)?
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:40 AM
    Moderator
  • I didn't install any drivers. I'm using whatever 2003 installed for my hardware. I went to dell's site to download the drivers, but it wouldn't come up on the server for some reason.

    I replaced the network card in the server lastnight, and I still have the same problem. so that isn't it.
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:49 PM
  • also, When I watch the the transfer with a packet sniffer (wireshark) it says there is a tcp offload error?
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:51 PM
  • Have you removed the USB drives from the storage pool as I suggested?
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:46 PM
    Moderator
  • Yes, same issue.

    I'm starting to thing maybe its the switch? Its an older netgear that I got as a freebie from a previous company when they upgraded to managed switches. The problem is that I dont know anybody who has one I can borrow to test with. And i'd rather not go spend $200 on a new one if it is not the problem.
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:03 PM
  • For purposes of testing, an inexpensive but reliable unmanaged switch will be adequate. For example, I like this one.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:09 PM
    Moderator
  • Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I'm able to copy files just fine now. The bad news is I'm not sure what fixed it.

    I broke the cardinal rule and changed two things at one time. I replaced one of my network cables, and I plugged the the WHS directly into the router, bypassing the switch. I'm pretty sure that it was a bad cable, but when I get home tonight, I'll confirm that. Either way, everything appears to be working now.

    Thanks for all your help!
    Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:26 PM