FreeFileSync Will Not Scan UNC Path? If I validate the UNC to an existing Samba SMB Share, works fine. Access files, read/write, create files and folders, etc.
I put the same UNC path in FreeFileSync (of course in Windows 11 Pro) and after several minutes Windows version/variant of FreeFileSync times out. Just shows searching for "<UNC Path>" which I just validated that via Windows File Manager works fine, in the current user context, that FreeFileSync is using.
So I tried 2BrightSparks SyncBackFree, it works fine. Moreover, I have use FreeFileSync for Linux to the same Samba SMB share, on a Debian 12 based PC, works fine. So this is really odd, no?
Error reported... IP Addresses redacted of course...
Cannot find the following folders:
\\192.168.x.x\Share 01
\\192.168.x.x\Share 02
__________________________________________
Cannot read file attributes of "\\192.168.x.x\Share 01".
ERROR_NETNAME_DELETED: The specified network name is no longer available. [GetFileAttributes]
Cannot read file attributes of "\\192.168.x.x\Share 02".
ERROR_NETNAME_DELETED: The specified network name is no longer available. [GetFileAttributes]
Frankly the error message does not make any sense, in File Manager, I am looking at the active/functional connection to the given UNC paths FreeFileSync reports it cannot see?
FreeFileSync Will Not Scan UNC Path?
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 2 Jun 2025
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 5 Jan 2024
Hi,
Are you mapping a drive letter to the linux box or just typing in the unc path? You need to authenticate to linux with the samba user id and password first.
I did a map of drive y: and it works fine.
Are you mapping a drive letter to the linux box or just typing in the unc path? You need to authenticate to linux with the samba user id and password first.
I did a map of drive y: and it works fine.
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 2 Jun 2025
No I am not mapping a drive letter... that should not be required at all. A UNC path is a valid connection specification in the File Manager, and other applications, i.e. SyncBackFree can use a direct UNC without issue. Samba shares can be accessed, with functional credentials, directly without explicit use of a drive letter as well.
If this is a limitation of FreeFileSync for Windows? Of course for Linux a mount point would be required, but for the MacOS no explict mount point is required, it is generated dynamically, or rather it is only used as an alias for the desktop icon, and again cached credentials are used. The fact that the File Manager (for Windows) does not require an explicit drive letter use... implies, IMHO, FreeFileSync is using the the wrong API methods to establish connections, not the current available UNC based methods, nor the correct cached credentials API.
As I stated before the correct credentials already exist, are cached, as the validated UNC access via the File Manager established. SyncBackFree uses these same cached credentials... no drive letter, no prompt even for these credentials within SyncBackFree, once established via the File Manager, to the Samba based share via UNC path.
If this is a limitation of FreeFileSync for Windows? Of course for Linux a mount point would be required, but for the MacOS no explict mount point is required, it is generated dynamically, or rather it is only used as an alias for the desktop icon, and again cached credentials are used. The fact that the File Manager (for Windows) does not require an explicit drive letter use... implies, IMHO, FreeFileSync is using the the wrong API methods to establish connections, not the current available UNC based methods, nor the correct cached credentials API.
As I stated before the correct credentials already exist, are cached, as the validated UNC access via the File Manager established. SyncBackFree uses these same cached credentials... no drive letter, no prompt even for these credentials within SyncBackFree, once established via the File Manager, to the Samba based share via UNC path.
-
- Posts: 4867
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Just general info, those IPs are internal LAN IPs so there is nothing really being risked if they are shared.
Other than that, I am using FFS with UNC paths perfectly fine, including the use of cached credentials. Are you running FFS as admin?
Other than that, I am using FFS with UNC paths perfectly fine, including the use of cached credentials. Are you running FFS as admin?
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: 8 May 2006
Maybe this, https://www.urtech.ca/2019/05/solved-can-connect-to-unc-path-with-host-name-but-not-the-ip-address/ - (Services) Netlogon.
In my case, I can connect to (the name) \\NAS, but I cannot connect to (the IP) \\192.168.1.137.
(I do not have Netlogon running in Services.)
nslookup.exe nas, gives to mapping of the name to the IP.
In my case, I can connect to (the name) \\NAS, but I cannot connect to (the IP) \\192.168.1.137.
(I do not have Netlogon running in Services.)
nslookup.exe nas, gives to mapping of the name to the IP.
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 8 Jun 2025
For my Debian box, I use rsync. Is there an advantage of FFS over rsync?FreeFileSync Will Not Scan UNC Path? Schorschi, 02 Jun 2025, 04:46
-
- Posts: 4867
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
FFS has a GUI
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 2 Jun 2025
@xCSxXenon, sorry what is your point? Of course it has a GUI... but I am trying illustrate how connections are valid... and credentials (in Windows) are cached correctly but FFS does not appear to use that API set correctly.
-
- Posts: 2947
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
The question was "Is there an advantage of FFS over rsync?"
And xCSxXenon answered "FFS has a GUI"
The point being, that rsync does not have a GUI.
And xCSxXenon answered "FFS has a GUI"
The point being, that rsync does not have a GUI.
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 5 Jan 2024
Rsync is a very difficult app to use in comparison.
I understand that you're fixated on using a UNC path and not a drive letter being mapped to that UNC Pad but why don't you give it a try and at least see if it works. If it works that's your solution.
Using a drive letter on Windows is not the end of the world. It's how most people do it. Most people are familiar with Drive letters not UNC. You are more advanced than the average user of windows.
I understand that you're fixated on using a UNC path and not a drive letter being mapped to that UNC Pad but why don't you give it a try and at least see if it works. If it works that's your solution.
Using a drive letter on Windows is not the end of the world. It's how most people do it. Most people are familiar with Drive letters not UNC. You are more advanced than the average user of windows.
