Weird CIFS problem

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Aggr's at 100% with FlexVols

ToE and NFS in VMware

David McWilliams

14 Jan 2008 14 Jan '08

6:59 p.m.

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrivefile://filer1/tdrive(/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 623 bytes)

Show replies by date

Fox, Adam

14 Jan 14 Jan

8:10 p.m.

Check the qtree security type with the qtree status command. If they are unix or mixed you may have a user mapping problem. If they are ntfs, that shouldn't be the case and it may be something else. But that's the first thing I'd check.

-- Adam Fox adamfox@netapp.com

________________________________

From: David McWilliams [mailto:davidkmcw@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:00 PM To: NetApp list Subject: Weird CIFS problem

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrive file://filer1/tdrive (/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Kevin Parker

9:08 p.m.

Check to ensure qtree is NTFS security, then check file-level NTFS perms. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of David McWilliams [davidkmcw@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:59 PM To: NetApp list Subject: Weird CIFS problem

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrivefile://filer1/tdrive (/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte,

David

Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

________________________________ Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

Milazzo Giacomo

15 Jan 15 Jan

8:45 a.m.

New subject: R: Weird CIFS problem

As first attempt you'd try to use My Computer/Manage and connect to the filer as it would a normal Windows member server (it is!).

Then using the shares tools check for permissions and rights.

Chekt the default qtree security style applied to /vol/vol0/tdrive. If you did not changed the wafl default it could be UNIX, change to NTFS with

Filer> qtree security /vol/vol0/tdrive NTFS

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrive file:///\\filer1\tdrive (/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Milazzo Giacomo

8:45 a.m.

New subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

I've an Exchange 2003 server mounted on NetApp iSCSI LUNs and managed by SnapManager for Exchange for its backups. SME does every night a full backup with a daily model.

Further there are another Backup Exec 11d media server that perform an historical disk backup using the usual method of daily incremental and a weekly full.

It happens (I know there's something wrong on SME backup type) that the BackupExec daily (incrememental) jobs fail with the message that "no logs found because they have been deleted by some other process". I've checked the Exchange log LUNs and it seems that, nevetheless the BE starts at 11 pm before the SME that starts at 03:00 am the transaction logs of Exchange are deleted causing the fail of the BE job.

Is there a better way to setup the SME backup leaving BE to perform the right incremental backup and leaving to BE the job to delete the unneeded logs?

Thanks in advance.

Note: I use the new Exchange backup mode offered by BE11d, so that the backup of the information store db and logs avoiding the use of the traditional brick level method.

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Borzenkov, Andrey

9:26 a.m.

New subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

According to SME documentation you should not use Incremental backup when SME is active. You may use Copy or Differential.

С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen

--- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer

________________________________ From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:45 AM To: NetApp list Subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

I’ve an Exchange 2003 server mounted on NetApp iSCSI LUNs and managed by SnapManager for Exchange for its backups. SME does every night a full backup with a daily model. Further there are another Backup Exec 11d media server that perform an historical disk backup using the usual method of daily incremental and a weekly full. It happens (I know there’s something wrong on SME backup type) that the BackupExec daily (incrememental) jobs fail with the message that “no logs found because they have been deleted by some other process”. I’ve checked the Exchange log LUNs and it seems that, nevetheless the BE starts at 11 pm before the SME that starts at 03:00 am the transaction logs of Exchange are deleted causing the fail of the BE job.

Is there a better way to setup the SME backup leaving BE to perform the right incremental backup and leaving to BE the job to delete the unneeded logs?

Thanks in advance.

Note: I use the new Exchange backup mode offered by BE11d, so that the backup of the information store db and logs avoiding the use of the traditional brick level method.

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrivefile:///\\filer1\tdrive (/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte,

David

Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Milazzo Giacomo

9:59 a.m.

New subject: R: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

Thanks for answer.

Effectively I wrong on my first mail. I’m using differential (read from SME docs) but the message is the same. I cannot use “copy” because I’ve not enough space to store all jobs.

BE error code is V-79-57344-33944 “Incremental and differential backups are not possible because one or more of the Microsoft Exchange Transaction log files has been deleted”

Event viewer shows also another message related to the need to perform a full before a diff or inc (of course J) but this message has nothing to do: I know is related to SME

Is there a method with SME that can be used to not create this issue?

Da: Borzenkov, Andrey [mailto:Andrey.Borzenkov@fujitsu-siemens.com] Inviato: martedì 15 gennaio 2008 10.27 A: Milazzo Giacomo; NetApp list Oggetto: RE: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

According to SME documentation you should not use Incremental backup when SME is active. You may use Copy or Differential.

С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen

--- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer

________________________________

From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:45 AM To: NetApp list Subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

I’ve an Exchange 2003 server mounted on NetApp iSCSI LUNs and managed by SnapManager for Exchange for its backups. SME does every night a full backup with a daily model.

Further there are another Backup Exec 11d media server that perform an historical disk backup using the usual method of daily incremental and a weekly full.

It happens (I know there’s something wrong on SME backup type) that the BackupExec daily (incrememental) jobs fail with the message that “no logs found because they have been deleted by some other process”. I’ve checked the Exchange log LUNs and it seems that, nevetheless the BE starts at 11 pm before the SME that starts at 03:00 am the transaction logs of Exchange are deleted causing the fail of the BE job.

Is there a better way to setup the SME backup leaving BE to perform the right incremental backup and leaving to BE the job to delete the unneeded logs?

Thanks in advance.

Note: I use the new Exchange backup mode offered by BE11d, so that the backup of the information store db and logs avoiding the use of the traditional brick level method.

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Nils Vogels

10:28 a.m.

New subject: R: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

Hi Milazzo,

On Jan 15, 2008 10:59 AM, Milazzo Giacomo G.Milazzo@sinergy.it wrote:

...

BE error code is V-79-57344-33944 "Incremental and differential backups are not possible because one or more of the Microsoft Exchange Transaction log files has been deleted"

Event viewer shows also another message related to the need to perform a full before a diff or inc (of course J) but this message has nothing to do: I know is related to SME

Is there a method with SME that can be used to not create this issue?

When you create your SME-job, you can choose wether or not to delete the log files or to archive them. IIRC, it's also possible to choose for the creation of hard-links instead of copying the logs over.

When your snapinfo is on the same LUN as your translogs, this is possible, and quite possibly using hardlinks and not deleting the logs every day is enough to get BE to complete the job succesfully.

HTH & HAND,

Nils

-- Simple guidelines to happiness: Work like you don't need the money, Love like your heart has never been broken and Dance like no one can see you.

Todd C. Merrill

1 Feb 1 Feb

5 p.m.

New subject: quota the default qtree in a volume

It's trivial to quota an entire volume, or a qtree within a volume.

Is it possible to quota the DEFAULT qtree in a volume (i.e., ID=0 qtree)?

Empirically, it seems no, the volume quota applies. According to the docs, the most restrictive quota takes precedence.

Unfortunately, I desire to quota "everything but" the existing, defined qtrees in a volume, and have that quota be LOWER than any of the other qtrees or the volume itself.

I'm hoping there is a way to do this. For instance, you can qtree snapmirror "everything but" the existing, defined qtrees on a volume with a syntax such as:

snapmirror initialize srcfiler:/vol/vol0/- backupfiler:/vol/volN/srcfiler_vol0-

Unfortunately, a similar syntax such as:

# Quota Target type disk files thold sdisk sfile # ------------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- /vol/vol1/qtree1 tree 1T - - /vol/vol1/qtree2 tree 1T - - /vol/vol1/- tree 1M - - * tree@/vol/snapnew 1M - -

doesn't appear to work. I can write a file larger than 1M into /vol/vol1/testfile.

-Todd

Glenn Walker

16 Jan 16 Jan

5:14 a.m.

New subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

SME marks the logs for deletion, which Exchange takes care of after the backup. This is normal behavior for backup applications and I don’t recall that you can change this with SME.

Why are you using two applications? What is BackupExec buying you in this case? SnapVault would work, as would mounting the LUNs and writing the EDBs to tape, etc.

________________________________

From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:00 AM To: Borzenkov, Andrey; NetApp list Subject: R: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

Thanks for answer.

Effectively I wrong on my first mail. I’m using differential (read from SME docs) but the message is the same. I cannot use “copy” because I’ve not enough space to store all jobs.

BE error code is V-79-57344-33944 “Incremental and differential backups are not possible because one or more of the Microsoft Exchange Transaction log files has been deleted”

Event viewer shows also another message related to the need to perform a full before a diff or inc (of course :-)) but this message has nothing to do: I know is related to SME

Is there a method with SME that can be used to not create this issue?

According to SME documentation you should not use Incremental backup when SME is active. You may use Copy or Differential.

С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen

--- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer

________________________________

I’ve an Exchange 2003 server mounted on NetApp iSCSI LUNs and managed by SnapManager for Exchange for its backups. SME does every night a full backup with a daily model.

Further there are another Backup Exec 11d media server that perform an historical disk backup using the usual method of daily incremental and a weekly full.

Is there a better way to setup the SME backup leaving BE to perform the right incremental backup and leaving to BE the job to delete the unneeded logs?

Thanks in advance.

Note: I use the new Exchange backup mode offered by BE11d, so that the backup of the information store db and logs avoiding the use of the traditional brick level method.

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Borzenkov, Andrey

6 a.m.

New subject: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

Well, I can understand additional tape backup (off site storage etc). In this case if you really need to backup logs on tape, you could just mount snapshot and use standard file system backup; no Exchange agent for BE is require. It does involve a bit of scripting but is doable.

С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen

--- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer

________________________________ From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:15 AM To: Milazzo Giacomo; Borzenkov, Andrey; NetApp list Subject: RE: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

SME marks the logs for deletion, which Exchange takes care of after the backup. This is normal behavior for backup applications and I don’t recall that you can change this with SME.

Why are you using two applications? What is BackupExec buying you in this case? SnapVault would work, as would mounting the LUNs and writing the EDBs to tape, etc.

________________________________ From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:00 AM To: Borzenkov, Andrey; NetApp list Subject: R: SnapManager for Exchange and other backup software issue

Thanks for answer. Effectively I wrong on my first mail. I’m using differential (read from SME docs) but the message is the same. I cannot use “copy” because I’ve not enough space to store all jobs.

BE error code is V-79-57344-33944 “Incremental and differential backups are not possible because one or more of the Microsoft Exchange Transaction log files has been deleted” Event viewer shows also another message related to the need to perform a full before a diff or inc (of course ☺) but this message has nothing to do: I know is related to SME

Is there a method with SME that can be used to not create this issue?

According to SME documentation you should not use Incremental backup when SME is active. You may use Copy or Differential.

С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen

--- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer

Is there a better way to setup the SME backup leaving BE to perform the right incremental backup and leaving to BE the job to delete the unneeded logs?

Thanks in advance.

Note: I use the new Exchange backup mode offered by BE11d, so that the backup of the information store db and logs avoiding the use of the traditional brick level method.

Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di David McWilliams Inviato: lunedì 14 gennaio 2008 20.00 A: NetApp list Oggetto: Weird CIFS problem

I'm domain admin, and I'm accessing a share on my filer \filer1\tdrivefile:///\\filer1\tdrive (/vol/vol0/tdrive). It is a seperate qtree, the only perms on the share are everyone/ full control. I even added a domain/administrator full control entry. I can see the top level of sub-dirs, bt I cannot go any deeper.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

-- Sláinte,

David

Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

6174

Age (days ago)

6192

Last active (days ago)

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

10 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

Borzenkov, Andrey
David McWilliams
Fox, Adam
Glenn Walker
Kevin Parker
Milazzo Giacomo
Nils Vogels
Todd C. Merrill