secretmachine
asked on
Windows Server 2008 R2 is seeing LUNs on our SAN and arbitrarily mapping letters? Experiencing corruption.
WARNING: Due to my lack of experience with the items in question my explanation of the issue will be a bit meandering.
We have setup a Windows Server 2008 R2 box to be our utility and backup server. It's running Backup Exec with the NDMP plugin. Fiber connects it to a Brocade switch which has our SAN and Dell TL2000 TapeVault connected to it. Dell did the zoning.
The problem we're having is that the Windows Server is arbitrarily mapping those LUNs to drive letters. I think a byproduct of that is Windows' creation of a recycle bin on every drive. I'm getting errors saying that the Recycle Bin on X:\ is corrupted. This is in turn corrupting things that are stored on these LUNs.
Has anyone encountered anything like this before?
We have setup a Windows Server 2008 R2 box to be our utility and backup server. It's running Backup Exec with the NDMP plugin. Fiber connects it to a Brocade switch which has our SAN and Dell TL2000 TapeVault connected to it. Dell did the zoning.
The problem we're having is that the Windows Server is arbitrarily mapping those LUNs to drive letters. I think a byproduct of that is Windows' creation of a recycle bin on every drive. I'm getting errors saying that the Recycle Bin on X:\ is corrupted. This is in turn corrupting things that are stored on these LUNs.
Has anyone encountered anything like this before?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Sounds to me you haven't set up LUN presentation on the storage box, are these LUNs meant to be used by this server?
ASKER
No, they aren't actually meant to be used by the server. The fiber is only connected so the backup server can control the tape vault via backup exec.
By the way, I appreciate your comments - I was waiting for feedback from my boss to appropriately respond to your comment, dlethe. He told me that he enabled the persistent drive mapping issue but that it didn't make a difference. I have no idea if he also looked into the SAN mapping options. Based on what you wrote, it seems the two, in this case, work in concert so if only the option was enabled, desirable results may not be reached anyway.
"Looks like they are allowing the same target to get mounted on multiple hosts in read/write mode." - I think this is exactly what's happening.
By the way, I appreciate your comments - I was waiting for feedback from my boss to appropriately respond to your comment, dlethe. He told me that he enabled the persistent drive mapping issue but that it didn't make a difference. I have no idea if he also looked into the SAN mapping options. Based on what you wrote, it seems the two, in this case, work in concert so if only the option was enabled, desirable results may not be reached anyway.
"Looks like they are allowing the same target to get mounted on multiple hosts in read/write mode." - I think this is exactly what's happening.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.