+1 - create a directory at the root, and share that, not the root. - Remove the NTFS permissions for Users from the root, and assign it to the directory, with Read-Only (this folder only)
It solves a lot of problems. Kurt On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Melvin Backus <[email protected]> wrote: > Not putting them in the root avoids the need to modify the base NTFS > permissions on every new share you create. While defaults used to allow > r/w access for everyone, now the default is r/o for everyone. By pushing > down a level you can change it once and all new shares can inherit the new > setting. I create a Shares folder for that purpose. No clue why going > down 2 levels though. I get the path length part, but our users wind up > exceeding that so often I’ve just come to accept it. Move a 200 > character path down the tree 8 levels to another 200 character path and > what do you get? A mess. J > > > > > > > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in the world... > those who understand binary and those who don't. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Graeme Carstairs > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:10 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Is there a reason not to have file shares in a > drives root folder > > > > Recently came across some filservers that were setup as > > > > F:\1\2\fileshares > > > > When asked why they relied that they had an ms consultant who recommended > this as file share share should not be in the root folder and that 3rd > level folder was the reccomended place for them > > > > They can't remember his reasoning > > > > But the 1 and 2 was to keep the path small so not to run into path length > issues > > > > Does anyone know why this would be recommended ? > > > > Tia > > Graeme > > -- > > Graeme Carstairs > > > > e-mail :- [email protected] >
