| All Forums |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Subscriptions |
My Profile |
Inbox |
| Tool Warehouse |
FAQs |
Resources |
Help |
Member List |
Address Book |
Logout |
|
|
SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps
|
Logged in as: Guest |
| Users viewing this topic: none |
|
Login  |
|
|
 SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 19, '05, 2:31:45 PM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
I am just getting started using the SFU 3.5 release and I am finding it very unstable.
I am on a Windows 2003 server with service pack 1 and it is up to date with all security patches. (Probally a mistake)
Running the same shell script several time shows that sometimes I get a core dump and other times I don't. The missing doexistproc.ksh script was on purpose, I thought I was narrowing down the problem but now I am not sure since it behaves inconsistently.
Here is the script text:
$ cat ./icoredump.ksh
doexistproc.ksh $bid "$(pwd)" $fn "SONUS"
exit 0
$
THE SAMPLE EXECUTIONS:
$ ./icoredump.ksh
./icoredump.ksh[3]: doexistproc.ksh: not found
Memory fault (core dumped)
$ ./icoredump.ksh
./icoredump.ksh[3]: doexistproc.ksh: not found
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
$ ./icoredump.ksh
./icoredump.ksh[3]: doexistproc.ksh: not found
$ ./icoredump.ksh
./icoredump.ksh[3]: doexistproc.ksh: not found
$ ./icoredump.ksh
./icoredump.ksh[3]: doexistproc.ksh: not found
Memory fault (core dumped)
$
If I try the script with just the exit 0 , it seems to work OK.
Actually I have a much, much more complicated script that I am having trouble with, but look I am core dummping on this simple case.
Any help would be appreciated.
--Don
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 19, '05, 2:37:41 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
Read the FAQ.
Entry 2.07 – I'm running on a new machine and my program core dumps, but it's fine on other machines.
Get the hotfix listed. All should then work fine.
If you are on newer hardware turn DEP off (same FAQ entry).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 19, '05, 3:11:15 PM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
Is the 2.07 FAQ accurate?
It says Hotfix Q899522 but is that now Q899028 ?
I see many posts such as : RE: ksh dumping core (dep off) - May 12, '05, 6:29:14 PM that indicate that the FAQ might be out of date.
That one indicates I should re-down load the "NEW" SFU 3.5.
I can't fine either hot fix on-line.
It looks like other people can't download them on-line either.
So am I on the hook for $99 just to try it?
All of a sudden the free SFU 3.5 isn't.
Help Microsoft!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 19, '05, 5:23:35 PM
|
|
|
cortez_
Posts: 330
Joined: Mar. 27, '04,
From: Poland
Status: offline
|
the microsoft policy on sfu hotfixes is completely not understandable to me. The will probably not charge you, but they dont want to make this publically available for download.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 19, '05, 8:24:26 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
Q899522 is the one. AFAIK the hotfixes have been rolling cumulative for Interix.
When a "problem" is MS's then you won't be charged for it. Even if you do give a
credit card and get charged it'll get refunded/credited back.
Since W2K3/SP1 guarantees you need the hotfix I asked PSS several weeks ago about
getting the SFU 3.5 download updated. PSS then asked for this to happen. I sent some
e-mail earlier today asking if this request has gotten anywhere. If (when?) this does
happen I'll make posting about it and the FAQ will get updated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 22, '05, 9:01:21 AM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
I submitted a Microsoft support request on 7/19 and I am still waiting for a response.
I am 1/2 done porting from MKS and now I am stuck.
Any sugestions on how to speed MS support up?
Someone to call perhaps?
I was very explicit asking for Hotfix Q899522 and referencing http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/forum/faqs.aspx#101
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 22, '05, 12:24:40 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
Sorry I don't know the actual paths that this goes through.
It being summer, perhaps there are a bunch of PSS people on vacation(?)
I assume it was done as an e-mail request then, yes?
A followup e-mail you done then too I'll assume?
There are at least several other people who have the patch who have been
to these Forums. I don't how often they read the posts here. But perhaps
one of these may have some experience they can share (hint, hint).
In http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/forum/tm.aspx?m=4382&mpage=1&key=PSS%2cphoneᕸ
member jonsmi managed to get the patch in a few minutes by telephone.
There's a MS web page for support telephone numbers that I found by searching:
http://support.microsoft.com/common/international.aspx?rdpath=gp;en-us;offerprophone&sd=tech
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 22, '05, 3:47:48 PM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
Thanks Rodney,
I am on the phone with MS right now, they said the best way to get the hotfix is to call 800-936-5800 and ask for the hot fix by name and there would be no charge.
I tried the email route for $99 and he is refunding that charge.
Thanks again, I wished I knew about this Forum before I started blindly downloading and trying to install. The FAQ's would have saved me a lot of trouble.
Thanks again,
--Don
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 25, '05, 10:37:31 AM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
I just want to report that the patch has solved my problem.
Thank You again,
--Don
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Jul. 25, '05, 11:41:53 AM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
You're welcome. Glad it worked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Aug. 19, '05, 7:57:56 AM
|
|
|
fernando
Posts: 2
Joined: Aug. 17, '05,
Status: offline
|
Why you do not provide the hot-fixes for other instead of calling MS?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Aug. 19, '05, 8:01:21 AM
|
|
|
fernando
Posts: 2
Joined: Aug. 17, '05,
Status: offline
|
Why do you not provide the hot-fixes for other instead?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Aug. 19, '05, 10:07:34 AM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
For these hotfixes it is Microsoft policy that PSS (Microsoft's Professional
Support Services) know to whom they have distributed each hotfix.
We cannot legally distribute or re-distribute the hotfixes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Aug. 23, '05, 4:24:39 AM
|
|
|
StuartRothrock
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul. 5, '04,
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the help posted here. I called the 800-936-5800 for Q899522. I was on hold for 15 minutes, transferred one and received the patch via email about an hour later. Interopsystems is the definitive source for information on the patch. This is the only site returned by Google if you enter Q899522 as of this post date. Good job Rodney!
< Message edited by StuartRothrock -- Aug. 23, '05, 4:27:19 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Aug. 31, '05, 2:24:06 PM
|
|
|
p2me
Posts: 1
Joined: Aug. 31, '05,
Status: offline
|
At MS Professional Service I was on hold for 10 minutes, then they hang up :-( Can someone send me this fix Q899522 ? Thanks a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Dec. 4, '05, 7:46:35 AM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
Hello all,
I want to recind my comment about the patch solving my problems.
I find even after the patch that SFU on windows 2003 server is unstable and therefore unusable. Not ready for production work.
I made the mistake going with it and now I have real mess on my hands.
It is much worst on multiprocessor servers, I don't seem to notice the issues so much on single processors and slower boxes, the kind I was testing on.
I am having many process hangs, sometimes the whole posix layer justs stops.
No I haven't pursued this with Microsoft, I just don't have the time.
They wanted core dumps, that is just not practical for me.
They must know this doesn't work.
Also be aware the new servers from Dell are shipping with windows 2003 64 bit and SFU does not run on that.
This moring I have a bunch of tasks with image name "loginenv" just stuck.
I can't launch new shells, everything is just stuck and I am frustrated.
I see that the forum has ~4k members is anyone else successfully used SFU on multiprocessor windows 2003 server with no issues? I'd like to know that.
Perhaps it is something simple which is causing me grief but I have on idea how to debug the issue.
I am porting back to MKS, it's not great but at least I can get a ksh shell that works, well minus signal handling.
Best of luck to you all, you have been very helpfull.
Thank You,
--Don
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Dec. 4, '05, 3:36:09 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
> They must know this doesn't work.
If MS isn't getting the feedback for a particular situation, it would be difficult.
There have been security programs (AV's) that have created problems by not allowing
files to be read/loaded. There has also been the DEP issue; I'll assume this is something
you have checked on your machine as well.
loginenv is a small program to set the environment when a request has been made from the
Win32 subsystem that an Interix process get run. Then the requested program gets run.
If loginenv has "stuck" for some reason the potential causes will make for a short list.
The aforementioned problem created by some security programs is number 1 on that list.
> Also be aware the new servers from Dell are shipping with windows 2003 64 bit and SFU does not run on that.
Correct. It has always been said no 64-bit. However, 2003/R2 is to be RTM'd mid-December. By January Dell will be
shipping 2003/R2 which includes Interix 5.2 (aka SUA) which runs on 64-bit.
> Perhaps it is something simple which is causing me grief but I have on idea how to debug the issue.
There are a couple of avenues: MS support, the forums here or the newsgroup. MS does have more resources of course.
And MS is serious about things working for SFU/SUA.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Dec. 4, '05, 3:52:07 PM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
Thank you Rodney, I'll look into the DEP thing.
Is anyone having success with SFU on windows server 2003 with more than one CPU?
I'd like to know that I'm not blazing a new trail.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Dec. 5, '05, 9:40:38 AM
|
|
|
doniuppa
Posts: 17
Joined: Jul. 19, '05,
Status: offline
|
DEP is set correctly - "/noexecute=AlwaysOff"
Still see the loginenv process stuck using taskmgr.
After a reboot the system works OK for a while, fine last night.
Tried to bring up a shell this morning and it hangs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: SFU3.5 WINDOWS 2003 Server Core dumps - Dec. 7, '05, 6:50:31 AM
|
|
|
breiter
Posts: 346
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
|
Another option, if you aren't in a huge hurry, is to request the patches you need online. I have gotten the patches by submitting a request from the web-based "Send a Question" form on the Help and Support page: http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/. I was careful to reference the KB number of each patch that I wanted.
It looks like the web form generated an email that was routed to the SFU 3.5 product support team. I'm not sure how orthodox this is, but I received by email links to the patches and passwords to extract them from the product support team within the day. I didn't have to call in and sit on the phone queue, provide a support account nor credit card number, get routed to the product team, be told that SFU 3.5 is only supported by call-back (from India), wait for the call, explain what I wanted, and finally get the email with links to the patches.
I've only tried it once, but using the "Send a Question" form just skipped to the chase in about the same amount of total time, but with much less of my time wasted.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
|
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
