Dirk.
From: Barron,Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-l ist] RE: [SA-list] What can masquerade as a name resolution problem?
OK --
I understand these things, that is what is so confusing.
To be clear:
Local logged on user does not exist on remote machine.
I can't do a net view \\<server> using that user because **that user does not exist on my local machine running SA**. Further, other machines (which incidentally have an identical administrator username/password in use) that have the same (replicated) checks running against them are working just fine.
For the checks that are failing (hell, for just about every check I have that's not a ping), "Authenticate before checking" IS checked. The user that is specified in that box is specified hostname/username, (these boxes are not in a domain), and this is the method I use for every check on every box, including checks that work on these boxes, and checks identical to the nonworking checks, but that are running (and functioning properly) against other boxes.
Spelling errors and syntax for username/password checked, checked, and rechecked.
The username and password have been double checked to ensure that they do still exist on the remote boxes, and are still administrator accounts. (to rule out user changes by well meaning personnel local to the boxes)
Further, 2-3 months ago this wasn't a problem, so SOMETHING has changed, presumably on the remote side.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason
Passow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:55 AM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject:
[SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list]
What can masquerade as a name resolution problem?
For the checks that are failing, you must be using a username
and
password. The username and password may be the one
you specified in the
services control panel under the
log on tab or in the check itself with
the authenticate
first box checked. This user MUST have administrator
privileges on the remote machine or the check will fail. If you
cannot
do a net view \\<server> using that same
user then you must troubleshoot
that first.
Jason Passow
Mississippi Welders
Supply
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ph:
(507) 494-5178
fax: (507) 454-8104
"If you do everything right, nobody will realize you've done anything at all."
Barron,Joseph wrote:
>
> 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]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:35 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
>
*Subject:* [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] What
> can masquerade as a name resolut ion problem?
>
> I think he means NET VIEW and
NOT NET SHARE as it appears you're
> doing...
No?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Barron,Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:50 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
>
*Subject:* [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] What can masquerade
> as a name resolut ion problem?
>
> 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]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:40 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
>
*Subject:* [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] What can masquerade as a name
> resolution problem?
>
> 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]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:20 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
>
*Subject:* [SA-list] What can masquerade as a name resolution problem?
>
> 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 Ping checks, NT
> Service checks, and Eventlog checks, plus are responding
to some
> errorlevel checks that I've implemented
using simple batch files. In
> all cases SA is given
only a hostname, and resolves hostnames using
> the
hosts file. In fact, the checks that are failing are dependent on
> a successful ping that is resolved using only the
hostname. There is
> no difference in syntax or
content of hostname or authentication
> information
between working and non-working checks.
>
> 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]
> To
unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon
Business Internet
> Managed Scanning Services -
powered by MessageLabs. For further
> information
visit http://www.mci.com
>
>
>
***********************************************************************
> 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]
> To
unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon
Business Internet
> Managed Scanning Services -
powered by MessageLabs. For further
> information
visit http://www.mci.com
>
>
>
***********************************************************************
> 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]
To unsubscribe
send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon Business
Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further
information visit http://www.mci.com
***********************************************************************
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]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
