Is there really any reason to still use WINS if your network is all
active-directory at this point? Only reason I can think of is if you
still have Windows 95/NT-era boxes floating around. But even then, the
Netapps don't necessarily have to use WINS, you could just make manual
WINS entries for them.
--
Michael W. Sphar - IS&T - Lead Systems Administrator
SMBU Engineering Support Services, BMC Software
_____
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Lai, Derek
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:44 AM
To: markallen(a)micron.com; aaron.hill(a)cba.com.au; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS PDC Issues
> If I use prefdc and all of my DC's in my list become unavailible will
the filer automatically broadcast to find a DC?
Yes I think it will. The problem I've had is similar to yours in that we
had a bunch of domain controllers out in the branches that we demoted
late last year. These were never removed from WINS. So periodically the
filer tries to ping all of them. Alot of these addresses no longer exist
so we are getting alerts because a server is trying to ping invalid
addresses.
I opened a case with NetApp and the support engineer suggested that
setting prefdc would preclude the filer from trying to access the rest
of the domain controllers that are no longer there. That did not work.
The other suggestion I got was to remove WINS from CIFS SETUP
altogether.
Derek
_____
From: markallen(a)micron.com [mailto:markallen@micron.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:04 AM
To: aaron.hill(a)cba.com.au; Lai, Derek; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS PDC Issues
Aaron,
Thanks for the information. We found out that one of our DC's were
upgraded and moved to a different domain. WINS was never updated to
reflect this change so the filers still see this DC as a valid DC in
their domain. I'm going to use prefdc until our Windows crew removes
this system from WINS.
I'm running 6.5.5 on the majority of the filers we saw impact on. I
still seen issues on two filers running 7.02. The cifs resetdc would
work on some of the filers but not all of them. On two of the filers I
had to actually terminate cifs and do a cifs setup to bring it back to
life. I had to use prefdc on one filer because if kept trying to rebind
to the DC that shouldn't be listed in our domain. This was the only work
around I could think of at the time.
If I use prefdc and all of my DC's in my list become unavailible will
the filer automatically broadcast to find a DC?
-Mark
_____
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Hill, Aaron
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:19 PM
To: 'Lai, Derek'; markallen; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS PDC Issues
Yeah, we saw something like this a few times with Win2k AD DC's
periodically last year. The issue was intermittent and could affect 1
filer in a cluster even though they had the same settings.
Deep analysis was done involving packet traces, Microsoft/NetApp
escalation concalls and stubbornly attempting to reproduce the issue in
a lab without success.
The root cause was never fully determined and the only fix we had was
reactive ..... cifs resetdc to re-establish the authenticated pipe with
the DC's.
Essentially, anyone with an existing CIFS session established was ok.
They could operate as per normal. It was clients attempting new
connections that were met with the "Access is denied" message. Do you
know if ALL sessions were affected, existing AND new?
Our problem may have been a little different to you in that we had a
defined prefdc list of 5 DC's. It seemed that if 1 DC "authentication
pipe" shutdown with the filer, the filer was not smart enough to move
onto the next one in the list. This is essentially because the only way
a DC was tested as being "available" was by a ping test. Something they
call DCPING as part of the Filer AD site awareness.
NetApp did release a fix in 6.5.6 (or maybe a slightly earlier P
release) that made the DC test a little smarter. I believe it now uses
the ability to establish a pipe as an available DC criteria. We haven't
had any reported incidents in the past few months, so it may have
helped. It is hard to say due to the intermittent nature.
I will try and track down our original case number if it helps.
Thu Jan 26 15:03:35 MST [cifs.trace.GSS:error]: AUTH: Unable to acquire
filer credentials: (0x96c73a44) KRB5 error code 68. -----> This is very
similar to the error we would see just before connections dropped for
the clients.
Thu Jan 26 15:03:35 MST [cifs.server.infoMsg:info]: CIFS: Warning for
server \\WNTNANI <file:///\\WNTNANI\> : Connection terminated ----> This
happens regularly and isn't anything to be concerned about. EXCEPT
apparently when it follows the previous message and no sessions are
attempted to be established with other DC's.
The other messages look familiar, but I can't be sure.
What does your "testdc" return?
Does this affect all filers or only some? i.e. Like one cluster partner
affected without the other.
Are your DC's experiencing any issues? i.e. Are the Domain Controller
services and dependent services all up and running? Can you connect to a
share on your domain controllers directly when this happens?
Good luck,
Aaron
_____
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Lai, Derek
Sent: Friday, 27 January 2006 10:14 AM
To: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS PDC Issues
Are the times synced up between filer and the domain controllers?
Kerberos is very time sensitive.
Derek
_____
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:13 PM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: CIFS PDC Issues
Today I had several filers at different OS levels stop serving data via
CIFS with the following errors. I had to stop and restart CIFS to get
CIFS working properly. The filer acted as if its kerberos ticket wasn't
valid with any of the domain controllers. Has anyone seen this before?
Cifs domain info command:
Not currently connected to any DCs
Preferred Addresses:
None
Favored Addresses:
ip WNTNABO2 PDCBROKEN
ip WNTNABO1 PDCBROKEN
Other Addresses:
ip WNTNABO4 PDCBROKEN
ip WNTNACRUBO1 PDCBROKEN
/etc/messages output:
Thu Jan 26 15:03:35 MST [cifs.trace.GSS:error]: AUTH: Unable to acquire
filer credentials: (0x96c73a44) KRB5 error code 68.
Thu Jan 26 15:03:35 MST [cifs.server.infoMsg:info]: CIFS: Warning for
server \\WNTNANI <file:///\\WNTNANI> : Connection terminated.
Thu Jan 26 15:04:07 MST [auth.dc.GetDCName.failed:error]: AUTH: Error
0x0 while trying to get Domain Controller name for
Thu Jan 26 15:04:32 MST [sshd_0:info]: Did not receive identification
string from x.x.x.x
Thu Jan 26 15:04:39 MST [auth.dc.GetDCName.failed:error]: AUTH: Error
0x0 while trying to get Domain Controller name for
Thu Jan 26 15:05:11 MST [auth.dc.GetDCName.failed:error]: AUTH: Error
0x0 while trying to get Domain Controller name for .
Thu Jan 26 15:05:43 MST [auth.dc.GetDCName.failed:error]: AUTH: Error
0x0 while trying to get Domain Controller name for
Thu Jan 26 15:07:01 MST [sshd_0:info]: Did not receive identification
string from x.x.x.x
Thu Jan 26 15:09:32 MST [sshd_0:info]: Did not receive identification
string from x.x.x.x
Any insight into this would really help me out. I have a case open with
Netapp as well.
-Mark
************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE **************
This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
information which may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return
email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and
any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this
email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or
the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its
subsidiaries.
We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au.
If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us,
please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line.
***************************************************************