I am using WFA 22.214.171.124.31RC1. When developing a new workflow, I was testing an SQL query and many of my CIFS shares are not represented in the output. My select statement looked like this:
SELECT share_name as s_name, array_name as a_name
FROM storage.cifs_share, storage.array
WHERE cifs_share.array_id = array.id
AND array.name = "My.Array.Name"
When I view my CIFS shares in DFM, I see 22 shares. When I view them via testing the select statement in WFA I see 12. In the case of one vfiler it is missing all the shares including all the C$ and ETC$ and whatnot. In the case of another vfiler, C$ and its ilk are there, but other shares that have been created are missing. I can't spot any particular pattern, just that a bunch of them are gone.
Has anybody ever seen this before? Is it a bug that is fixed in a later version? Is it some kind of freak configuration problem? Any help or guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks for your reply. The shares that are missing are not all newly created, although one of them is. Some of them are quite old. The acquisition is scheduled for every 30 minutes, and I had tried doing an "Acquire Now" as part of my initial attempt at troubleshooting it myself. It's now been over a week that I've been seeing the problem (though admitedly I haven't been focused on this. It's been sort of a background task between other work) and I am still having the problem. All of the acquisitions in the Data Sources screen show as "Completed". There are no error messages.
Thanks for getting back to me. All of the acquisitions show as "Completed" in the "Data Sources" screen with no failures indicated. If there's a problem, I'm not sure where to look. Any guidance would be great. As for upgrading to a later version of WFA, I am willing to do so, but I need to figure out where this data loss is happening first. If I change a bunch of things without having any idea where the problem is, then I don't know if I can trust that the problem won't come back later. If this was a known bug and a certain later GA version identified it as fixed, I'd be all sorted out. That would be great. So far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is the case, though.
I'm currently working through this in my lab, so there's minimal impact. The bigger problem is that I can't ask my production guys to trust WFA to make decisions about where to provision storage when I can't trust the data.
I have opened a case on this so hopefully we can get to the bottom of it soon.