|
Disable administrative share.
|
|
|
|
|
I woke up this morning to a freshly rebooted server thanks to an MS update, and all of the sudden xcopy deploying updates to any asp.net application (website or web service) results in *every* asp.net web application reporting a compile error.
I tried editing the web.config (i.e. insert or delete some whitespace) in order to get asp.net to recompile/recache, but that only works 1/10 times. Deleting the entire asp.net cache doesn't even work. The only workaround I've found so far is a complete server reboot, which is, well, crap.
Anyone else experiencing this, or is it just our server that's gone all whacky today?
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't had the problems.
But a faster way than a server restart is to stop the application pool for erroneous app and delete the dotnet cache for the app and start the application pool again.
Personally I'm finding also this to be to much fuzz, so if someone else is having a better method I'm all ears
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not just us.. I got a skype call from an old sysad friend of mine who's got the exact same problem happening on 3 different continents since the last Server 2K3R2 update.
In his case, installing and re-installing the .net runtimes fixed the issues he had, but this unfortunately doesn't work for us. He is running asp.net code on netfx v1.1, v2.0, v3.0 and v3.5, whereas *all* of our code is compiled against netfx v3.5 (i.e. 2.0 + extensions), so not the same config.
However, we are now able to restore working service without rebooting by using NET STOP IISADMIN /Y followed by NET START W3SVC to force IIS to start over. I feel like I've just been time-warped 10 years into the past to the days of classic ASP and COM, *ugh*
This still means the every website, web service and the ftp service have to be killed any time we want to make even the most *minor* change to any of our hosted apps (which is crap), but at least we're not going down for 2-3 minutes, and DNS and mail can continue to function throughout it all.
Not a resolution, but at least a sloightly better work-around for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a driver (.sys file) signed using verisign. But when I am loading that signed driver it is failing due to some of the local security policies i.e. UAC is enabled. If I disabled UAC then I am able to load driver.
As per microsoft user will not be able to load unsigned drivers. I would like to know what steps needs to be done in order to load signed drivers on Windows Vista with UAC enabled.
SNI
jhghjghj
|
|
|
|
|
Only administrators can load new drivers, signed or otherwise. Whatever program is trying to load the driver must be running elevated. That means using a manifest to mark the program as requiring administrative rights, or another approach to cause the program or code to be elevated, such as the COM Elevation Moniker[^].
If you're using a Windows Installer package and using a custom action to load the driver, you will need to ensure that the custom action is not marked to Impersonate the active user. An Impersonated custom action will execute using the unprivileged token even if the user running the package belongs to the Administrators group. A non-impersonated action will run in the LocalSystem context.
"Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another." - Andrei Alexandrescu
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I would like to know What is the significance of Admin Approval Mode in Windows Vista? What is the impact on system and application running under vista if I disable this?
Can we keep disable this for applcaition to run properly. My application is doing some hooking for Keyboard and Mouse and also injecting dll in to some processes.
Thanks
SNI
jhghjghj
|
|
|
|
|
Admin approval mode is a mode where a user who is an admin will be prompted for approval before admin tasks are run.
It works by running the user as a normal user most of the time, and elevating them to admin when required (with a confirmation prompt)
You should not disable it for developing because you need to ensure you application works with it because your users may have it turned on. You should embed a manifest in your application to tell vista how you program should behave. You can use the manifest to tell vista that you program requires elevation, and vista will elevate it and display the required prompt to the user.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I have a application (TestA) which forks another application (TestB) with admin credentials. TestB application is now runing under Administrator credentials and it does the some admin activities like loading driver (.sys file). But while running TestB application with Admin credentails am unable to load driver i.e it fails to load driver.
Above application is running with following conditions.
i) Application should run in Standard User mode.
ii) UAC i.e. Admin Approval mode is enabled.
Now my question is whehter above approach is correct or Do I need to incorporate manifest file for admin ELEVATION?
Thanks
SNI
jhghjghj
modified on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I would have thought that the TestB app will need a manifest so vista knows that it needs to be elevated.
SNI wrote: it fails to load driver.
Perhaps if you post the exception message, stack trace and other details somebody might have come across the same problem before.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
I have configured manifest file for TestB applciation as requestLevel = 'requireAdministrator' and while running this application it will prompt for admin password. when user provides this pass word then I am able to perform admin activities.
But i dont want to know admin password the end user. Please let me know is there any way in vista by which we can provide admin credentials to the processes without user intervention.
jhghjghj
|
|
|
|
|
SNI wrote: Please let me know is there any way in vista by which we can provide admin credentials to the processes without user intervention.
No, there isn't.
That is the whole point.
If the user is an admin, they will be prompted and will have to click OK.
If the user is not an admin, they will be prompted and have to enter the admin password.
This is a security feature. The only way to avoid the UAC prompts is to disable UAC. Disabling UAC is a setting that the user chooses, and you can't guarantee your users will have it disabled. You should write your program so it works fine with UAC turned on.
If you want your program to do admin tasks, you have to put up with the UAC prompts. This is just how vista works.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
thanks. what about powershell scripting? I read that it helps in removing prompting user to provide Admin credentials. Do you have any idea?
jhghjghj
modified on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
No. There is no way to prevent the UAC prompts from happening.
The user can disable them, but that is their choice. You cannot just have them disabled for your application.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having a problem with the file properties Summary Tab being turned off on Zip files only. I've read some threads linking this to the recent SP3 update for XP, but I haven't found a way to re-enable the tab. The message I get on the Zip file Summary Tab (for all Zip files) is "Summary properties are unavailable for the selected source(s)."
I have a second PC running XP Professional as well and the SP3 Update didn't complete. The Summary Tab is working fine on that computer. Any one have any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
i am a web developer and i have been asked to program a stupid batch, but i am totally ignorant in that..
I can say that i have thousands of Xml Files into a folder, i designed a XSL transformation and i need to apply the transformation to all these files.
1. I downloaded msXsl and works great
2. I made a little batch calling msXsl in this way:
msxsl.exe %1 %2 -o %3.xml
This is working and saves my source file in a modified Xml file (through my Xsl transformation).
The point is that i need another batch wrapping this one, and basically it should invoke this one and pass as a parameter the names of all the files in the folder.
Any help is really appreciated.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Use "Call" and the name of the batchfile to start it in the same environment, "focus" is returned to the calling batch as soon as the called batch exits.
Use "Start" and the name of the batchfile to start it in a new environment that runs independantly from the original batchfile.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a file that is 66 GB. (it is a virtual box VDI file)
I want to move it from the drive I created it on, to another drive (with 70+ GB available).
Always, after copying between 55 to 62 GB (NOT near 2^N), it fails with a "Delayed Write Failed" error.
The target drive is set to write through the cache.
I can still see the drive through other means, so it is not dead.
I have run diagnostics, and the drive does not own up to any problems.
I have tried copying it with explorer.
I have written a program that copies, reading, writing and flushing a meg at a time.
Always the same result
I zipped it, and copied it to another machine, and tried to unzip it. (Its about 8 GB compressed)
When unzipping, it writes around 60 - 62 GB into the target, and starts having delayed write failed error.
So now we are on a totally different system, and it is generating the same type of error at roughly the same file size, on three different disks.
I have also tried unzipping it on a W2K3 machine, and that went fine.
Now I am trying to push it from the W2K3 machine to the XP Pro machine.
NTFS is supposed to handle files with more bytes than there are grains of sand (give or take 15  )
Is there some limit with XP on how big a single write session can be, or some other limit I might be hitting?
TIA
Richard
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cna't comment on the technicalities of why it might be failing, but I can suggest a workaround:
TeraCopy[^]
A gem of a utility IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Delayed write errors simply mean write errors that occurred when the system tried to write back from cache to the disk. The system caches writes in order to consolidate them, to maximise writing performance, and to support fast reads back from recently-written locations.
The problem is with the disk hardware, not the OS.
"Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another." - Andrei Alexandrescu
|
|
|
|
|
Normally I would agree with you - but I have tried it on multiple hard disks, XP chokes on all of them.
I have run full diagnostics on the disks, and there are no problems with them. SMART thinks they have no issues, as well. This is something intrinsic to XP, not the drives.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
This is something specific to your machine/Windows installation. I've written some tests creating and copying 80GB files between drives without any issues.
|
|
|
|
|
I could see that, but they are plain vanilla XP Pro SP2 installs. One on a Dell, and one on a ThinkPad.
Both act the same. Win 2K3 does not.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
