Mapped network drive

[Muse]

I have a LAN and I've mapped some of the drives on some machines to others. However, I often put these machines to sleep so when I awaken a machine that has a drive mapped from a machine that's asleep I get an annoying little box saying that such-and-such drive can't be connected and I have to click OK to make the message go away. Is there a way around this? If I "Disconnect" the drive won't I have to remap it entirely next time I want access? Surely, there must be a better way.

 

[drebo]

The better way is to use a dedicated server (or at least a NAS) that doesn't go to sleep.

 

[JackMDS]

Give all the computer Static IP, or do IP reservation if t your Router supports it.

Then set all the NICs in all computers to Not save Power.

There might be some variations on where the Power saving setting is.
Here are few examples, YMMV, look around in your systems.

Example, http://www.ezlan.net/example/powersave.jpg

Example, http://www.ezlan.net/Win7/power_sav_wireless..jpg

Example, http://www.ezlan.net/Win7/power_save_win7.jpg

Example, http://www.ezlan.net/Win7/adv_power-sav.jpg

 

[Muse]

The better way is to use a dedicated server (or at least a NAS) that doesn't go to sleep.

Actually, this is what I've been planning for a long time (years, really), and have been setting up the last 2-3 days. I have 2 desktops (only use one regularly, the other can sit idle for over a year), and 3 laptops. I set up one of the laptops to be my file server, will see how it works out. That laptop only uses about 12 watts with the monitor off, which of course it is (off) unless I'm configuring it. However, I thought that if there was a good way I could keep the other mappings (e.g. from a non-server laptop to one of my desktops) without issues, why not do that? Maybe not worth the trouble and I'll "disconnect" those mappings. I've been dealing with those messages for years.

Even with a USB external HD (I have a WD20EARS 2TB) connected to the server laptop, it draws about 12-13 watts with the LCD off (according to Kill-a-Watt). I have been investigating (was hoping) to run the server laptop intermittently, having it go to sleep after X minutes of inactivity and waken (WOL) when requested for data, but don't know if it's possible to get this running satisfactorily. It might not be worth the trouble. It's not really the power consumption entirely but the possibility of equipment failure as well that concerns me, i.e. likely failures over time might be the fan and HD. The "server" laptop (Lenovo T60 running XP) supports HD turn off after X minutes but it doesn't seem to be spinning down (I believe I hear it all the time).

 

[tomt4535]

Actually, this is what I've been planning for a long time (years, really), and have been setting up the last 2-3 days. I have 2 desktops (only use one regularly, the other can sit idle for over a year), and 3 laptops. I set up one of the laptops to be my file server, will see how it works out. That laptop only uses about 12 watts with the monitor off, which of course it is (off) unless I'm configuring it. However, I thought that if there was a good way I could keep the other mappings (e.g. from a non-server laptop to one of my desktops) without issues, why not do that? Maybe not worth the trouble and I'll "disconnect" those mappings. I've been dealing with those messages for years.

Even with a USB external HD (I have a WD20EARS 2TB) connected to the server laptop, it would draw less than 20 watts with the LCD off. I have been investigating (was hoping) to run the server laptop intermittently, having it go to sleep after X minutes of inactivity and waken (WOL) when requested for data, but don't know if it's possible to get this running satisfactorily. It might not be worth the trouble. It's not really the power consumption entirely but the possibility of equipment failure as well that concerns me, i.e. likely failures over time might be the fan and HD. The "server" laptop (Lenovo T60 running XP) supports HD turn off after X minutes but it doesn't seem to be spinning down (I believe I hear it all the time).

If you are worried about hardware failure, make sure you have good backups and then you won't have to worry as much. Use that 2TB external for backups, or grab another one. There are plenty of backup programs that are free and easy to use.

 

[Nothinman]

Mapped drives have always been flaky, it's just something you get used to dealing with.

 

[Muse]

If you are worried about hardware failure, make sure you have good backups and then you won't have to worry as much. Use that 2TB external for backups, or grab another one. There are plenty of backup programs that are free and easy to use.

Yup, I started reading more today about backup programs. I was a database administrator my last full time job but that kind of backup wasn't what I was mostly doing. I was more than anything a programmer who oversaw the entire application -- development, deployment, data, etc. But backing up my own complex multifaceted set of data that's frequently changing is another kind of challenge I've never really mastered. I typically do full backups when I know I should be doing incremental backups, I've just never worked out how to do it. Today, for example, I copied 167 GB of MP3 files (a small % of those were WAV files) from one computer to another. The great majority were already there so there was no need to replace them, but replace them I did.

 

[Muse]

Mapped drives have always been flaky, it's just something you get used to dealing with.

How else can you set things up? My laptops connect wirelessly except for the one laptop that's acting as my server machine. It's running XP and is connected by ethernet to my Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless router, which is not wireless N. So far, this has been pretty reliable (over a week) but there have been sporadic issues including a breakdown when trying to save data from a wirelessly connected machine. At the time I'd just changed the server laptop's setting from Performance for the CPU (in BIOS) to Balanced, thinking this might not affect practical day to day operations of the network, and would decrease power usage and the machine would run cooler. After getting the error (in which I lost some data, not a big problem, it was just some text I'd typed), I changed back to Performance setting for the CPU in BIOS, and that problem has not reoccurred as of yet.

A guy told me I shouldn't expect reliability unless I'm running a server operating system. Should I get WHS? My research into WHS appeared to reveal that it doesn't support running on a laptop, although I think it's been done. I could assemble a low powered server. Is there that much of an advantage to using WHS over XP in terms of reliability and stability?

 

[Nothinman]

I doubt moving to WHS would make a difference, especially since the only real differences between MS server and client OSes are almost all licensing.