|
You are right, I don’t know WTH I
was thinking. Too much multitasking. I get access denied… But this makes sense to me. The local
user account that is logged on to the PC running SA does not exist on the
remote machine, and I get the same result
if I run a NET VIEW on a machine where everything works. Joe From: Rick Fogarty
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think he means NET VIEW and NOT NET
SHARE as it appears you're doing... No? From:
Barron,Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If I do that, I get a list of shares for
that server. It does not show the admin shares, however. (And I
suppose it shouldn’t.) From: Dirk Bulinckx
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What happens if from the system running SA
(and as the user running SA) you take an OS prompt and do a NET VIEW \\<server> (<server> is one were you get the 53
error). Dirk. From:
Barron,Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My ServersAlive install was inactive for quite a long
time. (Couple of months.. Long story as to why.) Yesterday I fired it back up, installed the new API based
eventlog check, and away I went… The majority of my tasks have been created once, then
replicated. For the majority of hosts I’m checking, all tasks are
working well. For two or three hosts, my perfmon and NTProcess checks
fail with: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:29:39 PM XXXXXXXLS1 LMPC Support
PC CPU Usage Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:29:47 PM XXXXXXXLS1 Perfmon
(Processor,% Processor Time,0) gave errorThe network path was not found. ( 53) Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:29:56 PM XXXXXXXLS1 LMPC Support
PC CPU Usage Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:30:02 PM XXXXXXXLS1 Perfmon
(Processor,% Processor Time,0) gave errorThe network path was not found. Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:49:09 PM XXXXXXXLS1 LMPC Support
PC EPO Agent Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:49:15 PM ERR process check:
ERR: 53 Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:49:15 PM NT Process check of
UpdaterUI on SEUSCITYLS1 failed While the specifics vary from server to server and check to
check (of course) this is the output of every perfmon or NT Process check on
the three affected servers. Now, you might think this is obviously a name resolution
problem. It’s not. (Well, at least not obviously so.)
Please see the following supporting details: n Even the
problem servers are responding properly to n Other
servers are responding properly to the same checks that are failing on the
problem servers. When I say “same”, I mean replicated
directly from the same source check as those that are currently failing. n While I
theoretically own these machines, the nature of their use is such that it would
not be impossible for a well meaning local person to make changes on that
end. However, I wouldn’t even know what to look at, given that most
checks work on the problem machines. I have checked the archive, apologies if I’m missed a similar
problem. Joe
*********************************************************************** The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and is provided solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail, its attachments or any information contained therein is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments. No responsibility is accepted for any virus or defect that might arise from opening this e-mail or attachments, whether or not it has been checked by anti-virus software. To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected] |
