Thanks for the response.

My customer was reccomended by the vendor to use block size 1024 in order to get the best writing performance to the datadomain.

I havent tried to change the heap memory as of yet, I need to contact an expert to do so as I am not quite sure how to do so.

Do you have any relevant articles you can point me to?

If not thanks for your help so far much appreciated.

I believe SP1 limit for bs to be 64KB was only for tapes so I would rule that out for now.

The error itself seems to suggest either an issue with heap memory or block size indeed. Did you try to increase heap memory?

Usually disk device has 128KB block size - I assume you change it manually?

I have done it, once tested I will let you know

Just check for heap memory in Powerlink - there should be support article about it.

This is what I did, I changed the SharedSection

1. Click Start | Run and run regedt32
2. Browse to the following key in the registry editor:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems
3. Click to modify the "Windows" value
4. Locate the SharedSection parameter within the data of this value. This parameter will have 3 or 4 values.
5. Increase the third value by 256 or 512

For example, when the SharedSection equaled "1024,3072,512,512" in one case, changing it to "1024,3072,1024,512"

Which heap is that? If I remember correctly there used to be 3 heap settings within same registry key... shared one and 2 desktop related...

Are you trying to scan deleted volume or existing volume on top of the existing data?

Hi,

we changed the memory heap in widows registry to 1024, restarted the NetWorker Server but we are getting the same error on the scanner command.

Any other ideas?

we are trying to scan in data on top of existing one.

I tried now scanner on 7.4SP2 with both devices (RW and RO) being 128KB and 1024KB and works fine here. I know this is a bit different than DD device as on top of that you must supply username/password for share. What is possible is that perhaps exactly that user would need to run scanner command (obviously write is ok).

In my test the only strange thing is that scanner in both cases states record size to be 128KB (however volume properties report size to be 1024KB):

C:\>scanner -i -v C:\tmp\filedev
8909:scanner: using 'C:\tmp\filedev' as the device name
8374:scanner: Reading the adv_file label
8936:scanner: scanning adv_file disk hrle.001 on C:\tmp\filedev
8937:scanner: volume id 4265883292 record size 131072
created 6/02/08 20:06:20 expires 6/02/10 20:06:20
8939:scanner: adv_file disk hrle.001 already exists in the media index
8850:scanner: ssid 5648526: found beginning of hcrvelin:C:\tmp
29485:scanner: ssid 5648526: scan complete
8786:scanner: ssid 5648526: 328 MB, 50 file(s)
32339:scanner: (ssid 5648526) confirmed 50 existing file index entries
8761:scanner: done with adv_file disk hrle.001

C:\>scanner -i -v C:\tmp\filedev
8909:scanner: using 'C:\tmp\filedev' as the device name
8374:scanner: Reading the adv_file label
8936:scanner: scanning adv_file disk hrle.001 on C:\tmp\filedev
8937:scanner: volume id 4283839107 record size 131072
created 6/16/08 11:29:39 expires 6/16/10 11:29:39
8939:scanner: adv_file disk hrle.001 already exists in the media index
8850:scanner: ssid 4250284757: found beginning of hcrvelin:C:\tmp
29485:scanner: ssid 4250284757: scan complete
8786:scanner: ssid 4250284757: 328 MB, 50 file(s)
32339:scanner: (ssid 4250284757) confirmed 50 existing file index entries
8761:scanner: done with adv_file disk hrle.001

To be honest, I'm not sure if bs is really related to this problem. The only remotely close thing to your problems is described in esg68857.

Hi Hrvoje Crvelin

Thanks a lot for all your help so far, already you have been more useful that Legato support.

I have 7.4.2 set up in our lab, and I tried the scanner command which seemed to work fine on the disk device, both at 128kb and 1024kb. I am going to do some more research on the matter and post back once I know a little more.

Thanks
dd1980

Hi ,


I think you should tried to increse the share quota of the folder and also please check that the folder should have the administrative rights given ..This should work.

Hi There,

the issue was resolved by running scanner directly form the console.

The customer was running it via RDP (and failed to let me know).

Thanks for all your help.

DD1980