Why is Windows 10 Version 2004 preventing logon scripts from mapping NAS drives at first logon attempt?

Anonymous
2020-06-06T22:33:25+00:00

Since we updated Windows 10 to Version 2004 that all the machines in our domain stopped mapping NAS drives at first logon.

When the users start the machines and logon the logon script maps correctly the drives in several servers but not in the NAS.

If they logoff and logon again then the mapping is done correctly.

The problem occurs sistematically and started only after Version 2004 was installed.

It has nothing to do with SMB 1.0 being enabled - it was already enabled before Version 2004 as it was needed because we are talking about an old NAS.

Direct SMB appeared enabled and we disabled it, but it didn't solve the problem.

Windows for home | Windows 10 | Internet and connectivity

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments No comments

42 answers

Sort by: Newest
  1. Anonymous
    2020-06-23T12:30:58+00:00

    We have the same problem.

    I hope MS resolve it asap.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments No comments
  2. Anonymous
    2020-06-23T10:50:37+00:00

    I've posted this issue on various forums, MS Technet included.  I either get NO answer or simply get ragged on for daring to use such an old protocol on a 17 year old OS.  Admittedly that's the answer to those having the issue for regular MS OS's like 2003, it won't fix the issue to those using older SAN hardware that can't be upgraded. 

    I fear we will never get this issue resolved, it will instead fall to us to replace hardware / OS software to make the issue go away.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments No comments
  3. Anonymous
    2020-06-23T10:11:31+00:00

    Hi!

    So the proofs pile up; it is really a problem in version 2004.

    Each time I upgrade a machine from 1909 to 2004 the problem starts.

    I've been doing all kinds of experiments. Initially disabling Direct SMB appeared to solve the problem but it must have been just an occasional fluke, because the next time it occurred again.

    It appears to have something to do with timings.

    I guess we have to wait until someone at Microsoft realizes they broke something and decides to patch the OS.

    Was this answer helpful?

    1 person found this answer helpful.
    0 comments No comments
  4. Anonymous
    2020-06-16T14:42:33+00:00

    I to am experiencing the same issue.  Although in my situation we have an older Windows 2003 server that uses SMB1.  All the way up to 1909 the PCs connected fine.  When installing 2004 on 4 different machines the logon scripts took about 15 minutes to complete and when finished most drives were inaccessible.  Windows Explorer shows a progress bar and most drive mappings are shown as disconnected.  

    I found that running the command "net use * /d /y"  BEFORE rebooting, the script ran fine on the next boot, it ran in less than a second and all drives showed connected and were accessible. However subsequent reboots caused the same issue UNLESS proceeded with the UNmap command. 

    We have a bunch of drives mapped to various server - NONE of the rest are to a Windows 2003 server.  I UNMapped JUST the drives to the Windows 2003 server leaving those to 2008/2012/2016 servers, and on the next boot the script ran instantly and all drives are connected properly.  

    This is somehow caused by the SMB1 connection.  I am unable to experiment with the logon scripts because only a select few in security are allowed to modify them.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments No comments
  5. Anonymous
    2020-06-10T22:39:43+00:00

    I'm also having these issues with a NAS and drive mappings after 2004. Was working right after upgrade until that first restart. Had to disconnect drive mappings and remap, which is fine until you reboot and have to do it all over again. Rolled back to 1909 and all is well. I also had SMB 1.0 enabled.

    Was this answer helpful?

    2 people found this answer helpful.
    0 comments No comments