My NetApp (FAS2720 running ONTAP 9.13.1P8) is receiving this authetication error roughly every two hours. I think, but I haven't yet been able to confirm, that the request is coming from a Solaris system. It looks like, under the hood, the NetApp is mapping its *NIX login to a Windows user for the purpose of domain authentication and that it's getting most of the way there but then failing at the end (bold text). Does anyone know how to resolve this? Here's the error text (personal info redacted): Severity: LOG_ERR Message: secd.nfsAuth.noCifsCred: vserver (svmfile01) NFS authorization cannot retrieve CIFS credentials. Error: Get user credentials procedure failed [ 0 ms] Determined UNIX id 65534 is UNIX user 'pcuser' [ 25] UNIX user 'pcuser' mapped to Windows user 'EXAMPLE\guest' [ 26] Successfully connected to ip 192.168.1.5, port 445 using TCP [ 32] Successfully authenticated with DC dc1.example.com [ 41] Encountered NT error (NT_STATUS_PENDING) for SMB command Read [ 45] Found Windows name 'EXAMPLE\guest' [ 49] Successfully connected to ip 10.1.1.5, port 88 using TCP **[ 59] FAILURE: Could not get credentials via S4U2Self based on full Windows user name 'guest@EXAMPLE.COM'. Access denied. [ 59] Could not get credentials for Windows user 'guest' or SID '[SID]' Description: This message occurs when an NFS authorization attempt fails because of the inability of the system to retrieve a matching CIFS credential for use in multi-protocol security operations. Action: Examine the failure details to determine corrective action. This failure usually occurs because the system is unable to communicate with Active Directory.
... View more
I received this error: "vifmgr.lifs.noredundancy: No redundancy in the failover configuration for 2 LIFs...This message occurs when one or more logical interfaces (LIFs) are configured to use a failover policy that implies failover to one or more ports but have no failover targets beyond their home ports." The error applies to the node management LIFs on the two nodes (node1_mgmt, node2_mgmt) and also the two custom replication LIFs I created (node1_replication, node2_replication). The replication LIFs are talking to a NetApp in a different datacenter. Here are the failover settings for the node management LIFs: Logical Home Failover Failover Vserver Interface Node:Port Policy Group -------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------------- Clus node1_mgmt node1:e0M local-only Management Failover Targets: node1:e0M node2_mgmt node2:e0M local-only Management Failover Targets: node2:e0M The replication LIFs have a similar config: Logical Home Failover Failover Vserver Interface Node:Port Policy Group ------- --------------- ------------- ---------- --------------- Repl node1_replication_dcpn node1:e0e-202 local-only Repl_VLAN_202 Failover Targets: node1:e0e-202 node2_replication_dcpn node2:e0e-202 local-only Repl_VLAN_202 Failover Targets: node2:e0e-202 Here are the failover group settings: Vserver Group Targets ------- ---------- -------------------------------------------- Clus Management node1:e0M, node2:e0M Repl Repl_VLAN_202 node1:e0e-202, node2:e0e-202 As far as I can tell, the error is occurring because "Failover Targets" shows only one target for each LIF — the LIF's home port. Is there something I've missed here? Something I need to do to tell it that it can failover those LIFs to the corresponding ports on the other node? Or, looking at it a different way: is it even possible for management and replication (i.e. intecluster) LIFs to failover? If not, then is there something I need to change so that this alert condition will ignore these LIFs?
... View more
Hi Team, I recently created an NVMe Namespace, and during the process, an associated volume was automatically created. Below are the details: NVMe Namespace Path: /vol/namespace_nvme/namespace_nvme_1 Associated Volume: namespace_nvme I’m trying to understand the performance differences between the NVMe namespace (/vol/namespace_nvme/namespace_nvme_1) and the associated volume (namespace_nvme). Specifically, is the performance of the NVMe namespace the same as that of the associated volume, or are there key differences in how each performs? Looking forward to your insights! Thank you!
... View more
