"File Access Denied" Errors
-
@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.
-
Still awaiting on the switch but I did run a few jobs from my PC and while I didn't get the error, this is what the performance looks like:
-
Seems like the disk is fine and the network is not loaded. How does the disk look from the hypervisor level?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Seems like the disk is fine and the network is not loaded. How does the disk look from the hypervisor level?
I had to turn on diskperf since it is off by default with Server 2012 R2...I ran that job from my PC on the network share and here was the results on the hypervisor:
-
What about transactions / IOPS?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What about transactions / IOPS?
I'll check that next (been a busy few days)...oddly, these problems did not happen at all yesterday...period...and it hit me last night to check our Internet Monitor program, which actually runs on a second Hypervisor but does live monitoring and could take up a lot of bandwidth...sure enough. it had crashed and was not collecting. So, I've decided to leave it off today to see what happens and then turn it back on Thursday to see if the problem reoccurs.
I am desperate for an answer but this could be the problem...
-
I turned the Internet Monitor back on and made sure the agents were running on the PC's...within the hour, got two reports of this FILE ACCESS DENIED...side note, I've had a single user who does not run this Internet Monitor agent but when the Internet Monitor Server agent would run, he would get this error...and side note, not everyone got this error...so it could be a combo of network congestion and this program running...I will let it run the rest of the day and then I will turn off the server agent tomorrow and see what happens.
-
Well, it is safe to say it was this Internet Monitor...Still off and no errors...and since their support has stopped responding to my emails, we may look for another option soon but it isn't high priority.
