BACKUP EXEC 11D REMOTE AGENT PORT 21 CONFLICT

[Dan_Manning]

All:

Has anyone else seen a conflict from Remote Agent (BE 11d) on Port 21? My read of the BE documentation tells me there should be no FTP traffic as part of the RemAgent process, however when I installed RA the RhinoSoft Serve-U FTP server quit. Serve-U reports that it cannot listen on P21 another service is already using the port. Uninstalled RA and Serve-U returned to service. Has anyone seen anything similar to this?

[DanielBickford]

Dan,
I am really not sure how this is possible, Backup Exec does not use port 21 for anything. The following technote shows all ports used by all Backup Exec components: http://support.veritas.com/docs/285830
You can use netstat -ao to see what processes are using what ports on your system.
I hope this information helps.
Daniel

[Dan_Manning]

Dan:

Thanks for the info. I agree this is very confusing. Unfortunately the exact scenario is as follows:

1. Remote Agent not present - ServeU functional
2. Remote Agent installed - ServeU Un-Functional - Serve U application reports "conflict" on Port 21.
3. Remote Agent Uninstalled - Serve U functionality returns.

Ive done a little "minor" port scanning, but frankly my port analysis experience is very limited, Im still learning how to interpret my results.

Im also prepared to find that the issue and the scenario above are "coincidental" and not associated. The server in question will come up for backup again tomorrow night and Ill try Remote Agent install again.

I guess a workaround where RA is installed and then Uninstalled as necessary "might" get us through, but it would be better to isolate the P21 conflict I think.

I actually had found your linked notes from Veritas earlier in the troubleshooting, but can't dimsiss the reality of our experience so far.

For now I "think" there is an actual conflict between ServeU, RA and P21, but still troubleshooting.

Any ideas are welcome and appreciated!

Thanks again for the notes!

[DanielBickford]

Did you run the netstat -ao to see if it reports port 21 being in use at all?

[Dan_Manning]

Dan:

Yes, but netstat -o not an option in Win2K server. However simple netstat does show p21 in use on the server.

[Dan_Manning]

Hmmmnnnmmnnnnn??????

Ok, new success + new symptoms...

1st incident occured after a local install of RA using the 11d media. After going over some more notes, thought Id try a push from the Backup Server.

Voila' - RA and Server U running concurrently and no P21 conflicts reported. Port scan on the remote server also lists the Backup Server only on the documented range from Veritas/Symmantic.

Will montior throughout the day in-case there is a "delayed-reaction" but think we've at least got the app's loaded.

Re: the media install. Assuming a successful backup tonight, thought I try and replicate the original issue tomorrow with a 2nd RA install from media.

If the original issue returns, would it be appropriate to post that issue here?

Continued thanks for everyone's guidance!

[Dan_Manning]

OOPS - Spoke Too Soon! Sorry :(

During the original incident the ServeU Administrator that is normally present in the task bar appeared to have closed.

During my RA "push" from the server, the ServeU Admin did not close. Im afraid I jumped the gun. Although the Aministrator continued to run, the domains also stopped functioning and began reporting P21 conflicts.

Removed RA and the ServeU functionality returned.

Im afraid Id have to conclude whatever the issue is - RA is the cause.

More confusing however is fact that neither netscan, nor tcpview display any activity on P21 that I can associate with RA.

However TCPView does illustrate the following:\
1. With RA intalled TCPView reports the FTP service employed by only 1 process = inetinfo.exe.
2. However with RA Un-Installed TCPView reports ServUDaemon.exe:1192 on P21.

That looks to me like RA is somehow "blocking" ServUDaemon.exe. -- Agree? Any ideas why?

For the meatime, I think we're going to abandon BE for this server and try and push data with NTbackup :( or even a custom batch job.

However, if ANYONE can help with ideas, expereince or notes why ServeU and RA would be "banging-heads" it will be deeply appreciated!

Continued thanks!
(...and apologies again for my hasty notes in the last post!)

[DanielBickford]

Dan,
We have never seen this conflict, so I can only assume there is some kind of unusual interaction between IIS, ServeU and Remote Agent.
If you wish to get a final solution for this issue, please log a supprt case to dig into this deeper.
Thanks,
Daniel