"File Access Denied" Errors
-
We seem to get internment "FILE ACCESS DENIED" errors when creating or modifying files from a program called MBS (Metal Building Software). It basically hits the file server hard in creating and modifying files related to the job in MBS. It doesn't happen all the time but it is random when it does come back and when it does, they usually get several across a few day period. And oddly, it does seem to be the same people who get it.
It doesn't seem to be a certain file that it is "making" as it is random. It just stops with that error, they go back to the top where it says AUTO and make the cells again and it will usually work (but sometimes providing the error one more time)
The only commonality is the users who get this error also use Lync Messenger. But if I turn Lync off for a few users (but not uninstall), it still happens. The users of this MBS software who do not have LYNC do not get this error. So it seems odd that this can be a coincidence...
If they copy the folder they are working on to their local C drive, the error doesn't happen...so it is something in the network or perhaps permissions.
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. And it is possible that these Lync users are all on the same switch but I am almost certain one of them isn't.
All workstations are Windows 7 Pro, 64bit and our server is 2012 R2 (VM's)...
I checked the logs on the domain controller, file server and workstation. NOTHING. I've contacted the software company and they are clueless as to what it is. So, was wondering if it could also be network related? Perhaps the switch these users are on?
Any suggestions?
-
use something to look at network traffic on those computers when it happens. I doubt it's related to Lync. Also have you checked the load on the file server?
-
@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. You can restart the server service to see if it will then let folks in.
You could also be on a path with the switch idea. El cheapo switches, with a chatty protocol like SMB, could be filling the ARP table with all kinds of garbage. If it's a commonality, bounce ye olde switch.
-
@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.
-
@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.
