Closed the-grayest closed 2 years ago
Please, any updates expected?
Hey @the-grayest ,
Thanks for reaching out!
Can you please tell me if you're seeing the same error when running azcopy remove
command or is it just happening in Storage Explorer?
Hi @mohsha-msft! As described above, we run command azcopy command directly in CMD.
Discussed Offline.
what was the resolution?
Which version of the AzCopy was used?
10.13.0
Which platform are you using? (ex: Windows, Mac, Linux)
Windows
What command did you run?
azcopy.exe remove "https://SA-REDACTED.blob.core.windows.net/promo/temp/test/V_PPMS_ACTION_STATUS.delta/?sv=2019-02-02&se=2022-01-01T09%3A09%3A33Z&sr=c&sp=rdl&sig=pdUEtOKjWATABGFjf6KV3naQ4Z3s6C6Eqz7nWm%2BWjIk%3D" --recursive --trusted-microsoft-suffixes= --log-level=INFO
What problem was encountered?
First, we ran the command:
azcopy.exe remove https://safordatalake.blob.core.windows.net/promo/temp/test/V_PPMS_ACTION_STATUS.delta/? --recursive --trusted-microsoft-suffixes= --log-level=INFO
As a result, the command ended with errors. In the log of the AzCopy operation, we see a message about the successful removal of the __tmp_path_dir directory:
2021/12/02 09:43:41 INFO: [P#0-T#3] DELETE SUCCESSFUL: temp/test/V_PPMS_ACTION_STATUS.delta/_delta_log/__tmp_path_dir
But later, there is an attempt to delete the parent directory, which ended with an error:
2021/12/02 09:43:42 ERR: [P#0-T#0] https://safordatalake.blob.core.windows.net/promo/temp/test/V_PPMS_ACTION_STATUS.delta?se=2022-01-01t09%3A09%3A33z&sig=-REDACTED-&sp=rdl&sr=c&sv=2019-02-02: 409: DELETE ERROR -409 This operation is not permitted on a non-empty directory.. X-Ms-Request-Id:798666ce-b01e-0014-6a61-e75fcb000000
After the command finished, we saw that the directory __tmp_path_dir still exists.
It is logical that if the / /__tmp_path_dir directory were really deleted, then the 409 error (conflict) would not occur. As you reported, the peculiarity of this situation is that only a few users authorized through AAD / RBAC observe this problem.
How can we reproduce the problem in the simplest way?
Have you found a mitigation/solution?
This problem is not observed when performing the same operation on the Portal using the classic UI or the web version of Storage Explorer.