"File Access Denied" Errors
-
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?
-
@coliver said:
@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?
Hyper-V...server 2012 R2...
-
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@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?
Hyper-V...server 2012 R2...
Ah, got it. You can monitor performance fairly easily then. Check out this article to see Disk I/O
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768535(v=bts.10).aspxOr you can download a Hyper-V performance monitor from ManageEngine
https://www.manageengine.com/free-hyperv-performance-monitor/free-hyperv-performance-monitor-index.html -
@coliver said:
@garak0410 said:
@coliver said:
@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?
Hyper-V...server 2012 R2...
Ah, got it. You can monitor performance fairly easily then. Check out this article to see Disk I/O
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768535(v=bts.10).aspxOr you can download a Hyper-V performance monitor from ManageEngine
https://www.manageengine.com/free-hyperv-performance-monitor/free-hyperv-performance-monitor-index.htmlThanks...I am really thinking we are starting to have performance issues...I wouldn't trade virtualization for anything now due to how fast backups are now...but it is time to fine tune it some and get to the bottom of quirky issues we've had lately.
