![]() In that case, it would be helpful to try the share instead of the host. Perhaps your configuration allows only to access its shares, not its login. You did not report if such login has been enabled in its configuration. ![]() The screenshot doesn't show the error when trying to get login onto legacy NAS. With so little information, I couldn't see a reason to even ask questions as you did not claim this to be an issue nor to be related.Įrror while trying to access NAS "mc-bunas"ĭo you want to try to login to your legacy NAS or do you want to access a share on that NAS? Without further info nor context, this is expected behavior and hence not an issue and hence not needing any action. And nobody was trying to apply torture although that would have been typical interrogation method for inquisition. We were asking about facts of context and you're very selective on answering just a few. I couldn't find anybody asking about motivations nor about confessions of faith or believes. I couldn't find anybody putting anything nor anybody on fire. We don't know if this is an issue, nor if it is related.ĭevistator wrote:Not going to succumb to inquisition. The open variant of the question what else you might have meant was still not answered. It's the only question which you replied out of my many questions of your lack of providing context. It sounds like 11 stolen work-group computers to be the most likely cause and meaning of lost. Without context, it leads to speculation. This sentence may have many or no meanings. In my experience, it is more efficient to do a proper analysis before trying to solve an assumed issue as you risk otherwise making the situation worse or only addressing symptoms.Īlso, out of 15 workgroup computers I lost all but 4. Please look at the log entry at 12:52:17 on January 11 of your legacy NAS. Amirhossein and I were asking for address conflict and your NAS system log is reporting also an already in use conflict which you did not reply to so far. If your Windows 10 computer at your home office establishes a VPN connection to your business office for accessing this legacy NAS, the symptoms you described are expected and hence no issue and hence nothing to solve. ![]() I wrote you that what you write doesn't seem to be an issue as no further details were provided. If you change your mind, the recommendations found in that field guide and its references might assist you in seeking better help. The Spiceworks field guide on posting good questions including its helpful references found at the bottom of its web page is telling you and us that you're not seeking help as you refuse to disclose enough context. Perhaps my English vocabulary might be a little bit limited as I'm not a native English speaker. ![]() ![]() I would advise that if this is having any knock on impacts to a production environment however that you engage with Commvault Support in order to have this looked into at a more in depth level.Devistator wrote:Trying to solve this issue and you are sarcastic. If you find any SVMs reporting associations with the wrong array then this issue can be addressed by entering the Netapp client properties and correcting the association. The following commands should be able to help identify if SVMs are in use across incorrect/multiple arrays when ran on both filers (from the cluster level): Hi confirm is this a new configuration or has this previously been operational and you’re suddenly having issues?Ī few things to check off are the following:Ĭommvault version dependant please double check the configuration meets the requirements Īnother thing to be made aware of if this array has been added to an environment with existing arrays configured is that previously we’ve seen an issue where SVMs have become associated with two arrays following the configuration of a new array within the environment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |