Hi Trevor,
Apart from saying that I have seen this problem before - although
not on two different machines, but on one, I have not found out
why it happens. In my case it happens with a Win95 machine and
3.1.0.6. A backup done via the gui and selecting sub directories
one by one yields results - but as soon as an attempt is made to use
the gui or command line with an incremental type backup I get the
same error as you. I'm going to play around with some of the ADSM
server settings like commtimeout values and see if that helps.
Will keep you posted.
Regards
Christo Heuer
ABSA Bank
Johannesburg
South Africa
>G'day,
>
>We have a really strange problem. I am logging a call with IBM, but I
>thought that I would run it by the list as well, to see if any of you have
>any suggestions.
>
>Consider the following setup:
>
> +----------------+ +----------------+
> | | | |
> | ClientA | | ClientB |
> | WNT 4.0 SP4 | | WNT 4.0 SP4 |
> | ADSM 3.1.0.6 | | ADSM 3.1.0.6 |
> | | | |
> +-------+--------+ +--------+-------+
> | |
> +--------------+ +--------------+
> NetworkA | | NetworkB
> +----+------+----+
> | |
> | Server |
> | |
> +----------------+
>
>The 2 clients, are connected to 2 different networks - there is no
>connectivity between the 2. However, the ADSM server is connected to both
>networks via different adapters. Therefore, both clients can use the same
>ADSM server.
>
>However, the problem comes about when we try to restore data belonging to
>ClientA from ClientB by doing
>
> DSMC -nodename=ClientA
>
>We can do things like QUERY BACKUP and RESTORE -PICK with no problems. But
>as soon as the data transfer starts, we see a significant (~60 seconds)
>pause and then the error 'ANS1410E Unable to access the network path'. The
>source node (ClientA) isn't even know to NetworkB's name server. If we
>create a dummy entry called ClientA in NetworkB's DNS, and point it to a
>node that is reachable from ClientB, we instead get the error 'ANS4007E
>Error processing '\\ClientA\d$': access to the object is denied'.
>
>It appears, for some reason, that the restore process attempts to connect
to
>the original system. Before we upgraded to 3.1.0.6 (from 3.1.0.3) we did
not
>have this problem.
>
>Any clues? Suggestions?
>
>
>Trevor
|
