September 5, 201312 yr I just upgraded from 4.7 to 5.0 over the weekend and have come across a new quirk... I've tried to do some research on it but the below post is all I can find mention of it... Specifically, I get the error message "The directory name is invalid" when I attempt to open a file through windows explorer (typically only the first time but sometimes the second time I try to open it too, but the file always opens by the third attempt). Any ideas on this or did this ever get ironed out? I don't know if this is connected, but I recently updated XBMC to a recent beta and occasionally it gives me an error message "The file is no longer available, would you like to remove the file from the library". It didn't do this in the latest stable release (but I need something in the newer beta), I had assumed this was because maybe the actual drive was spun down? I know this isn't the case with the first issue listed above as I can try to play two media files back to back after the drive is spun up and still get the error on the second file. Any input on these? I tried to follow the RC's without ever updating to them but now I'm trying to wade through a couple years worth of trouble-shooting to see if I have anything in common with anyone else. Thanks in advance! took the plunge and upgraded to v5 b12a (as I may need to add my LSI controller so went to this version). I believe I just ran into a bug. Everything works great, except for shares that are exported, but hidden. I have one such share, and although i can access it as normal (by typing in the path in explorer), whenever I double click on a file to open it I get an error. "The directory name is invalid." edit: after a bit more testing it appears to happen only when there are special characters (like '-') in the name of the file This never happened in 4.7. I'm not posting a syslog as there is nothing showing in it when this error comes up. Any ideas?
September 5, 201312 yr I just upgraded from 4.7 to 5.0 over the weekend and have come across a new quirk... I've tried to do some research on it but the below post is all I can find mention of it... Specifically, I get the error message "The directory name is invalid" when I attempt to open a file through windows explorer (typically only the first time but sometimes the second time I try to open it too, but the file always opens by the third attempt). Any ideas on this or did this ever get ironed out? This is the first time I have seen any mention of an issue like this. It certainly does not happen to me when unRAID tries to get to the array. I wonder if you are getting some sort of timeout as drives are spun up? I have cache_dirs. installed so can get an immediate folder/file listing without having to spin up the drives.
September 8, 201312 yr Author Anybody?? :-( I don't believe it's a drive spin up issue. I'm quickly losing the wife approval factor with this sporadic error....
September 8, 201312 yr In the upgrade instructions for 4.7 there's this step: Go to Utils/New Permissions and execute that utility to change file ownership and permission settings. This is a one-time action necessary for proper operation of the 5.0 security model. Was that done with your upgrade? The only other thing that comes to mind is your unRAID server set to local master in SMB settings and you are part of the same workgroup?
September 8, 201312 yr Author Yes, I set the new permissions... Unfair is not set to be the master, but yes they're in the same group :-(
September 15, 201312 yr Author That should be "Unraid is not set to be the master" (auto correct is only as good as the user.........) Anyways, does anyone have any idea? I've got zip response here and neither Tom or marcusone replied to PM's... As I can't find any consistent cause as to why some files get this message and others don't, I'm about to go back to 4.7. It seems I can try clicking on a file to open it sometimes 2, 3, or 4 times and get this error message... But hit the 'enter' key once and it opens right up... Go back just for kicks and try to click on it again and I get the error message. This is the same on 2 different wire networked pc's, a 2 month old, clean Win7 install with little on it but XBMC and the basics needed for an htpc, and my other Win7 workstation desktop. Help, please!? I waited on 5.0 forever and now I'm ready to go back...
September 16, 201312 yr Author I have the 4GB so I'll give that a whirl as I have the next 2 days off... I'll report back with an update either way
September 16, 201312 yr It might be worth going back over the basics. You said you don't have unRAID set up as browse master. So that may mean you're leaving network discovery up to your Win7 machine. When you open Windows Explorer how do you access your unRAID box? Is it "just there?" From the Win7 machine do you get a good and quick response when you PING your unRAID server by it's name? If not what's written below may help. I prefer not to leave it up to chance or the magic of Windows networking. To eliminate some variables, edit the "hosts" file on your Windows machine. Have a look at this article: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/27350/beginner-geek-how-to-edit-your-hosts-file/ But what we're going to do is put the IP address of your unRAID box followed by it's name "Tower" if using the default. So the line would look something like this: 192.168.0.20 tower This will help Windows resolve the IP address of your unRAID server. And just to be on the safe side edit the "lmhosts" file (it's in the same Windows directory as hosts) and add the same information. Restart your Win7 machine. From a "command prompt" PING your unRAID server by name and it should respond quickly; there should be no delay resolving unRAID's address and very little delay with a response. I think it's a good practice to set up a reservation in your router for your unRAID server...or set up unRAID with a fixed IP address. We want to eliminate your client machine from having to search for it each time you want to make a request of it. Maybe you have this already covered. I hope it helps!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.