"File Access Denied" Errors
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@garak0410 said:
Because this thing creates and modifies 100's of not 1000's of files when they make the cells, it could be encountering network congestion and it just stops with that error.
Sounds like a shitty program. Nothing should be making that many calls to files. Especially over SMB.
You might be hitting some kind of session limit. Check your file server to see if there is lots o' sessions.
Client Side Windows only allows 10 session in Windows XP (both Technically and by the EULA). Windows 7 and newer (and maybe vista) have 20 session allowed technically, but I believe the EULA may still only allow 10 concurrent sessions not sure.
I'm not sure what the concurrent session limit is on servers, I don't think there is a default one but you can easily hit the resource limitations of a server or network.
I'm thinking something inherent to the protocol and the limits of Windows. Much like a cheap router can't handle millions of TCP sessions, Windows is hitting some kind of limit and causing an issue. Not a MS set limit, but an actual legitimate cannot do this kind of limit.
There doesn't appear to be anything specific about that, but then again, we don't expect applications to open thousands of connections all at once.
-
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
-
Any update on what might be causing this?
-
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
The storage for our file server is a VDISK on the 6 Drive RAID set on the virtual host...and we didn't have this problem until around November or so. And never had this problem when running file server on a physical server.
-
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
-
@garak0410 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
The storage for our file server is a VDISK on the 6 Drive RAID set on the virtual host...and we didn't have this problem until around November or so. And never had this problem when running file server on a physical server.
When did you virtualize? Have you looked into disk I/O to see if you are struggling there?
-
@garak0410 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
The storage for our file server is a VDISK on the 6 Drive RAID set on the virtual host...and we didn't have this problem until around November or so. And never had this problem when running file server on a physical server.
Could be as simple as the file being larger, fragmentation, heavier usage, etc.
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
Agreed, the Netgear ProSafe are excellent and cheap.
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
This is a managed switch right? We are pretty much unmanaged here...
-
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
This is a managed switch right? We are pretty much unmanaged here...
It is a "managed" switch. I think Netgear denotes it as a Smart Switch. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the difference is in their marketing, maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify why they denote it as Smart and not managed.
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
This is a managed switch right? We are pretty much unmanaged here...
It is a "managed" switch. I think Netgear denotes it as a Smart Switch. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the difference is in their marketing, maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify why they denote it as Smart and not managed.
Not that "Smart or Managed" is a problem but I like to just plug and go...
-
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
This is a managed switch right? We are pretty much unmanaged here...
It is a "managed" switch. I think Netgear denotes it as a Smart Switch. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the difference is in their marketing, maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify why they denote it as Smart and not managed.
Not that "Smart or Managed" is a problem but I like to just plug and go...
Yep, you can do that too.
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
This is a managed switch right? We are pretty much unmanaged here...
It is a "managed" switch. I think Netgear denotes it as a Smart Switch. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the difference is in their marketing, maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify why they denote it as Smart and not managed.
Not that "Smart or Managed" is a problem but I like to just plug and go...
Yep, you can do that too.
Thanks...may grab one and see if it helps...not that I am throwing hardware at it to fix a software problem but this could be one of the problems...I've tried so many other things...
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
Interesting observations...
It may be time for a more robust switch...we've been so focused on getting off of XP, New Server, Virtualizing and Exchange Online that the network seems to be the forgotten stepchild here...any recommendations for at least a 24 port switch that wont break the bank but still provide performance?
I've had a lot of good luck with these, GS724T.
Ordered one...will report back results in a few days...:)
-
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
The storage for our file server is a VDISK on the 6 Drive RAID set on the virtual host...and we didn't have this problem until around November or so. And never had this problem when running file server on a physical server.
When did you virtualize? Have you looked into disk I/O to see if you are struggling there?
We virtualized March 2014...we didn't have this issue until around November 2014. Nothing really has changed...we do allow streaming audio from desktops and BYOD's and that has increased some and may be causing network congestion.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Could it just be simple file locking? Moving to faster storage might reduce the issue. Using a file server for that kind of access is not how things are meant to be used. It will likely run into problems. This is why databases exist.
Do you think perhaps a dedicated NAS storage unit for this software suite may be an option? As mentioned, I never had this problem before when we were on a physical server and not on a VM/VDISK.
-
@garak0410 said:
Do you think perhaps a dedicated NAS storage unit for this software suite may be an option? As mentioned, I never had this problem before when we were on a physical server and not on a VM/VDISK.
Faster storage may help. a NAS Device though would be risky they tend to use low end hardware you'd be better off using a Server Based NAS with some SSDs.
-
Maybe you can save to a local location that is synced with the server instead?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@garak0410 said:
Do you think perhaps a dedicated NAS storage unit for this software suite may be an option? As mentioned, I never had this problem before when we were on a physical server and not on a VM/VDISK.
Faster storage may help. a NAS Device though would be risky they tend to use low end hardware you'd be better off using a Server Based NAS with some SSDs.
Agreed, but you should see if you are hitting I/O issues on your current array first, otherwise you will be dumping money into something that may not be an issue.
Which hypervisor are you using?
