W2K will map down an entire path to a drive letter now, ie:
net use X: \filer01\share\users\joed\data\docs\word\
I went down 16 levels & it still worked... lost interest after that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 5:38 PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: RE: W2k profile and Netapp
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe part of the "problem" MS tried
to fix in Win2K is that prior to Win2K you couldn't map a directory below
the share point. I.e, if you shared \server\users you couldn't
specifically map a drive letter to \server\users\username, which was
sometimes a problem.
It's been a while since I dealt with any of this and I normally don't deal
with the Windows side of things much, so I could be completely off base
here.
--
Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services -
Remedy Corporation
BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD
-----Original Message-----
From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:39 PM
To: 'Tim Longo'; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: RE: W2k profile and Netapp
You can map the share anyway you'd like. The preferred & taught method is
to create 1 single share and then let the OS create subdirectories on that
share. All our PC home directories are individual shares. 1 reason is that
we control all access at the share level if at all possible... don't have to
mess with file level ACL's. This also relieves most of the issues of Unix
file permisssions vs. NTFS permissions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:25 PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: W2k profile and Netapp
Greetings:
Currently on my NT 4 domain, we map a user share on the netapp,(also the
unix home), to a drive letter in the NT account profile. This is in the
form of: Z: \toaster\share
We have noticed that with Windows 2000, they want this share to be mapped in
the form of: Z: \toaster\share\folder
This makes migrating people from the old convention to the new convention
quite a bit of work.
Has anyone else encountered this, and how do you work around this problem?
Needless to say, we are extremely angry with Microsoft.
Thanks
Nail, Larry