NT Status Sharing Violation errors - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on NT Status Sharing Violation errors - Ubuntu ; I have installed the Gutsy server and am having problems with BackupPC in that many, many files and directories are skipped with NT Status Sharing Violation errors. The target PC is running XP Pro SP 2. There are about 70,000 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: NT Status Sharing Violation errors

  1. NT Status Sharing Violation errors

    I have installed the Gutsy server and am having problems with BackupPC
    in that many, many files and directories are skipped with NT Status
    Sharing Violation errors.

    The target PC is running XP Pro SP 2.

    There are about 70,000 files on the C drive. BackupPC copied about 50,000.

    I sure could use any suggestions on how to fix this problem.

    Thanks

  2. Re: NT Status Sharing Violation errors

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:48 -0500, Dlc wrote:

    > I have installed the Gutsy server and am having problems with BackupPC
    > in that many, many files and directories are skipped with NT Status
    > Sharing Violation errors.
    >
    > The target PC is running XP Pro SP 2.
    >
    > There are about 70,000 files on the C drive. BackupPC copied about 50,000.
    >
    > I sure could use any suggestions on how to fix this problem.
    >
    > Thanks


    Isn't a sharing violation an indication that the files are open? Just
    where are these files located?


  3. Re: NT Status Sharing Violation errors

    Meat Plow wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:48 -0500, Dlc wrote:
    >
    >> I have installed the Gutsy server and am having problems with BackupPC
    >> in that many, many files and directories are skipped with NT Status
    >> Sharing Violation errors.
    >>
    >> The target PC is running XP Pro SP 2.
    >>
    >> There are about 70,000 files on the C drive. BackupPC copied about 50,000.
    >>
    >> I sure could use any suggestions on how to fix this problem.
    >>
    >> Thanks

    >
    > Isn't a sharing violation an indication that the files are open? Just
    > where are these files located?
    >

    Maybe you are right. This backup ran while I was using the PC.

    I will try starting the backup from another unit and see how that works.

    Backups of other drive that had only data only had one error like this
    "NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED listing \System Volume Information\*".

    Obviously this is not a file I want to copy.

    Thanks

  4. Re: NT Status Sharing Violation errors

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:55 -0500, Dlc wrote:

    > Meat Plow wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:48 -0500, Dlc wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have installed the Gutsy server and am having problems with BackupPC
    >>> in that many, many files and directories are skipped with NT Status
    >>> Sharing Violation errors.
    >>>
    >>> The target PC is running XP Pro SP 2.
    >>>
    >>> There are about 70,000 files on the C drive. BackupPC copied about 50,000.
    >>>
    >>> I sure could use any suggestions on how to fix this problem.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >>
    >> Isn't a sharing violation an indication that the files are open? Just
    >> where are these files located?
    >>

    > Maybe you are right. This backup ran while I was using the PC.
    >
    > I will try starting the backup from another unit and see how that works.
    >
    > Backups of other drive that had only data only had one error like this
    > "NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED listing \System Volume Information\*".
    >
    > Obviously this is not a file I want to copy.
    >


    System Volume Info stores data for System Restore. You can mount an XP
    drive in linux and snoop around if you want to see what all is in it.
    You are going to run into file sharing violations and access denied errors
    unless your software can back up open files. And even at that you will
    still get errors. Back in my NT4 and Novell IT days I encountered this
    frequently when working with businesses that ran 24/7. We used a plugin
    for Veritas that would backup open files but it still was iffy especially
    if the open file was being written to when the backup occurred.

+ Reply to Thread