• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 406
  • Last Modified:

2000 or 2003 to XP, Large files, get error: The specified network name is no longer available

My setup:

2000 server SP4 w/ latest updates
XP pro SP2 w/ latest updates (3 of them)
2003 Small Business Server, SP1 w/ latest updates

All systems are connected on a LAN.

Copy files from 2000 or 2003 to XP. After about 5 minutes I get the error: The specified network name is no longer available. copy tried 2 ways: copy cmd in a bat file, and windows explorer cut and paste. Same error. Some other notes:

Once I get this message, all attempts to access the share (from the copy cmd or windows explorer) gives the error: The network path was not found. Disabling and enabling the network adapter will not clear up the problem, the 2000 or 2003 server must be IPL'ed to even see the share again.

Uninstalling and installing the device did not help.

Performing the copy/paste operation on the destination XP machine works.

The problem occurs on all XP machines.

The 2003 machine is a small business server with ISA 2004 SP4. Both servers are Domain Controllers, the 2003 SBS machine controls all domain roles.

I dont know when this problem started or if it ever worked correctly (I have always initiated copies from the xp clients in the past).

Thanks in advance.



0
MikeBroderick
Asked:
MikeBroderick
  • 10
  • 7
1 Solution
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
what errors does the event viewer show?
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
The event viewer does not show any errors on either machine. Odd. Most of the similar problems I have found seem to have event messages somewhere.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
hmm your cards all running at the same duplex?
0
NEW Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows

Backup and recover physical and cloud-based servers and workstations, as well as endpoint devices that belong to remote users. Avoid downtime and data loss quickly and easily for Windows-based physical or public cloud-based workloads!

 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
No. On some machines, when I try to set the adapter to 100t (or 10t) full, I get the error "cable unplugged". The error goes away when I set the adapter to 100t half or autosense. I assume if I get the error I am running at half duplex. Both the 2000 server and the xp machine are running at half. Here are the results of trying to set the machines to 100t full:

2003 sbs OK
2000 svr err
XP1 err
XP2 err
XP 3 OK

3 notes:

The problem occurs from the 2000 server to all 3 xp machines.

The problem occurs from the 2003 server to  XP 1

the problem occurs from the 2003 server to XP3 (full to full)
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
Here are some more symptoms:

On the XP machine, after the failure (the copy ends in error), there are ping problems. The XP machine cannot ping the 2000 svr, all 4 attempts return "Destination host unreachable". Note that both machines are on the same local network "192.168...". The XP machine can ping other local machines. The windows server can ping other machines. When the windows machine attempts to ping the XP machine it gets 4 "Request Timed out messges"

Trying from 2003 sbs server to XP, the above symptoms are similar. The recovery procedure is different for the 2003 sbs to xp failure than it is for the 2000 to XP machine. To recover from the 2003 sbs to xp, the xp machine must be ipl'ed. To recover from the 2000 to XP, the 2000 machine must be ipled.

The machines must be IPL'ed. Disabling and enabling the adapter did not clear the problem. Nor did uninstalling and installing the hardware from the device manager screen.
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
One more thing that was interesting. After a failure (2003 sbs to XP) and before recovering. I attempted to Remote desktop into the 2003 sbs server. Rmt desk via the LAN adapter didnt work (i didnt expect it to). However, remote desktop via the 2003's internet adapter did work. Once signed on, I attempted to disable and enable the 2003 server's LAN adapter. When the LAN adapter disabled, my remote desktop session locked up. This makes sense, the 2003 sbs is the gateway to the internet.

But the fact that I was able to remote desktop into the 2003 sbs server via its internet adapter makes me think not all traffic is broken between the 2 machines after a failure. (Ping doesnt work).
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
Also, just to be sure mixed duplex is not causing a problem, I went around to all five systems and forced them to be 100t half duplex. Same problem.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
hmm hmm hmm, maybe an issue within your swtich
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
We just tested that by removing the switch from the equation. We (my wiring guy and me) ran brand new cables from the 2000 server and an XP machine to a Lynksys router. No other devices were hooked to the router. The full duplex problem went away; we could force both machines to 100t full. However, the copy caused the same problem.

Also, to clear the problem the XP system needed to be IPL'd. Previously I reported the 2000 machine needed to be IPL'd.

I'm starting to think there is a bug in Windows.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
you may be right but i dont know what would be causing this bug? i daily transfer huge amounts of files around the place
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
I dont know. If it was a windows bug I would think there would be thousands of people lining up.

Do you sign on to the server and transfer from the server to the client or do you sign to the client and transfer to the client. Until this new copy routine, I always signed on to the client and ran the transfer.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
i can do either, and have done both regularly, i am just surprised there is nothing in the event viewers
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
I think I found the problem. I saved (via ASR) one of my XP's. I installed a fresh copy of XP. The copy worked. I installed SP1, still good. Installed all updates, including an update to the NIC. Still good (I thought that one might be the problem).

So, something in the XP machines is corrupted. I restored from my ASR. The copy failed. I did a repair Install using my XP SP1 CD. Still bad.

Drum roll... I removed Norton Antivirus 2005. This fixed the problem. I will remove it on the other machines to verify.

Norton expired on my machines 2 days ago. Note the failures started occuring about 2 days before Norton expired. I decided to upgrade to 2006; a five-pack with 1 year was only about ten dollars more that 3 subscription renewals. The tracking (that is so  cool) shows the package should be in today.

I mention the expiration event because if Norton didnt expire, I would not have tried removing it'n. I thought what the heck, norton usually makes you remove old versions anyway. Does anybody know of any trace routines, or other information gathering procedures that might have spotted the problem?

Jay Jay, thanks for your input.
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
When I installed Norton AV 2006 the copy failed again, this time with a norton pop-up stating it blocked what it thought was the "MS RPCSS Attack (2)" intrusion. Serious business. It displayed the same fact in norton's log. The following page does a good jon explaining the work-around:

http://gladiator-antivirus.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35676

If the above link dies, it said that once Windows machines are fixed, you can tell Norton to exclude the MS RPCSS 2 from its list of threats to block for in the Internet Worm protection Options section.

PS. Norton didnt make me remove the 2005 version when I put the 2006 version on.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
i hate norton with a passion and refuse to use their products unless its my only available option

try uninstalling 2005 manually and doing a clean install of 2006
0
 
MikeBroderickAuthor Commented:
I would be interested in your reasons for not liking Norton, but that would be a topic for another thread. We have had very little problems with norton around here. However, I never cease to be amazed how a product (any product) will work so well for some people and give other people so many headaches. I guess thats what makes a market.

Uninstalling and reinstalling Norton would not have fixed my problem; removing norton merely helped expose the problem. Norton thinks it is working properly and I agree with it, sorta. It seems that during a copy operation windows is sending packets with invalid or too large packet lengths to the receiving machine, and windows is leaking memory on the target machine during recovery, and hackers are using this vulnerability to disrupt machines. When Norton saw what I do admit looks like an attack it blocked the port for 30 minutes. This is what I would want it to do. Norton's only problem was not notifying me of the attack, and maybe it did in the past and I checked the "do not notify me again" box. The popup I did see after the new 2006 install had such a check box. I think I would remember checking something like that but, Oh well. I did see the "blocked" message in the AV 2006 logs and I can assume (another assumption O weary one?) it was in the 2005 logs but I dont know that.

Again, Jay Jay thanks for your input. This copy I've been trying to get to work is part of a "backup spread-around" routine that puts all nightly backups for all machines on different machine's D drive each night. It ran OK last night.
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
Gday Mike,

just comes from many years of torment trying to remove norton products from machines, and finding that they simply didnt cut it protection wise, i moved to trend and havent looked back

i am glad you got all resolved but i am not sure i really had any part in helping you, pretty certain you resolved yourself :) if you would like to get your points back i will have no objections but thankyou also

very strange that such a little security malfunction can do what it did :)
0

Featured Post

Get free NFR key for Veeam Availability Suite 9.5

Veeam is happy to provide a free NFR license (1 year, 2 sockets) to all certified IT Pros. The license allows for the non-production use of Veeam Availability Suite v9.5 in your home lab, without any feature limitations. It works for both VMware and Hyper-V environments

  • 10
  • 7
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now