Veeam using systemaccount for pre-script

[mrholm]

Hi
VBR 9.5U3, we create a pre-script for backup of Lotus Notes.
All Veeam services onthe VBR server runs under system account (for the VBR server of course) and in the job we have specified our Veeam account that are local admin on the Notes server.

The script works fine when run locally on the Notes Server.

When we invoke the script from Veeam it runs under the system account on the Notes Server since we echo in %username% in the script so it echoes servername$ in the log file.

Shouldn't Veeam use the account specified in the job for guest processing when it run the script?

//mats

[PTide]

Hi,

Shouldn't Veeam use the account specified in the job for guest processing when it run the script?

That's correct for pre-freeze/post-thaw scripts. In case of pre/post-job scripts Veeam executes those under service account. Which type of scripts do you use?

Thanks!

[mrholm]

We're running pre-freeze to have Notes consistent assign in the job "Guest Processing", so you say it should use the account specified in the job, it doesn't!

[PTide]

Then I'd recommend to contact our support team directly and post your case ID in this thread. The behaviour that you observe goes against the intended design and that needs to be investigated.

Thanks!

[mrholm]

New case created: Case # 03432196

[TomQB]

Hi,

did you get an answer in this case? I have the same problem. Thank you!

[foggy]

The case is still under investigation, so I recommend you to open your own one.

[mrholm]

No it's not solved!
Veeam Support keep saying that the script is causing the error.
Right now I have only the folloing in the script:

echo %date% > c:\temp\freeze.txt
echo %username% >> c:\temp\freeze.txt

this is to show support that when running the script Veeam uses the local system account insteda of the one specified in the job, the logfile for this shows (servername changed):

Fri 02/22/2019
servername$

[PTide]

Mats,

Well, so far I can see that another support engineer has already taken over the case and, having admitted that there is an issue, is inexorably moving towards QA team in order to get this sorted! : )

Thanks