topic Re: How to map to Volumes without having to share them first..... in Network and Storage Protocols

How to map to Volumes without having to share them first.....

kamranaslam — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:28:49 GMT

Hello all,

Any help here would be appreciated.

Is it possible to view/map to volumes from Windows Explorer without having to share the volume?

I had created a new volume and was also asked to create a directory structure within the volume. The method used to achieve this was;

1. Create CIFS share to the root of the volume.

2. Map to new share from Windows Explorer, and create the required directory structure.

3. Create CIFS share to the new directory and confirm it is visible in Windows MMC console.

4. Delete the original volume share (created in step 1).

All works fine but I feel that there must be a way of mapping to volumes without having to share them first. Can someone enlighten me here?

Re: How to map to Volumes without having to share them first.....

adamfox — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:05:14 GMT

Not via CIFS...that would defeat the security model of CIFS.

If you just want to create a directory structure, and are willing to do some coding, the NetApp SDK has a function call to create directories on the controller without CIFS shares.

Re: How to map to Volumes without having to share them first.....

kamranaslam — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:35:09 GMT

Thanks for the pointer Adam.

Unfortunately no coding experience for me. Looks like I'll stick with the method of initially sharing the volume then mapping to it, allowing me to create the desired directory structure.

Cheers, Kamran

Re: How to map to Volumes without having to share them first.....

chriskranz — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:14:07 GMT

If you just need to create a single directory within a volume (or single level of new directories), then try using QTree's. On a very simple level, these will just act as directories for you to create shares directly off from.

Re: How to map to Volumes without having to share them first.....

kamranaslam — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:06:29 GMT

Thanks Chris. Yes I agree. This option was considered.

Due to the environment not using QTree's I opted to not go down that path, keeping things consistent.

Thanks, Kamran