|
This is why I tend to hold off a while before applying the monthly
hotfixes unless there is an active exploit. The July one for Windows
2003 relied on having the files to uninstall a very old hotfix (a
change in some Australia time zone thing). I deleted old hotfix
uninstall files on all of my servers months ago, and as a result the
update would fail every time. There were lots of postings on support
lists all over the place concerning this. Where Microsoft has reps,
they were pretty much mum except to say that they had heard of some
having issues. Then about 25 days later, that hotfix disappeared from
my Windows Update queue. There was never a KB article or nuttin'. I guess the moral of this story is that you might not find confirmation from Microsoft unless it gets press, and you also probably not see a fix for weeks...if it is their fault. Uninstalling the most recent hotfixes seems to make a lot of sense. Keep in mind also that this probably affects more than just <= 4KB images. Matt Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi, Yes it started around this weekend - and, in our case too, those are small JPEG/GIF thumbnail images of up to 4K (so probably exactly one allocation unit).I've asked my client to intentionally change the compression factor to create the files slightly larger than 4096 bytes - to see if this theory holds true. It's pretty unlikely that no larger files would be effected by a hardware error, considering that they should have a higher chance to be effected (due to their larger size). Are you using an on-access virus scanner? We use McAfee - just trying to cover every base. Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 06:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. They work fine at first but later they are corrupted. Windows 2000 server. I have no clue what it could be at this time. It started around this weekend I think. Please keep me posted if you find something. H. Andy Schmidt wrote:Hi, I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks (software Raid-1). Two days ago a customer noticed that they uploaded files to their FTP space, and initially they see the files on the browser - but a while later the data is corrupted. I investigated - and oddly enough the problem so far always seems to appear with small thumbnail graphics files that occupy less than 4095 bytes. When I inspect the files I may see the "correct" data through a share, but if I access the files through some other method, I always see the byte pattern of 0xDF. I ran a standalone checkdisk a day ago against the first server, sure enough, it reported and fixed several problems "Windows replaced bad clusters in file xxxx". But, the problem recurred the next day. Now, my first instinct was that ONE of the two mirrored disks was truly on its way out and depending on which drive was being used to read the data it would either get good or bad data. However, a day later a second customer had the same complaint but on an entirely different machine. In this case, the error occurs with a set of relatively new SCSI drives (not even a year old). So now that I'm looking at two totally different server models, from entirely different years, one with fairly new disks - what are the chances that the SAME problem and symptom would show at the same time. Both on software mirrored disks, in both cases files that are less than 4 MB large. Now I'm wondering if this is some "software" issue. Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Barker Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew When the decludeproc services start under your windows services and the first email is processed. A file call diags.txt is created in your \Declude directory. This should contain the version and diagnostics. The valid options on decludeproc from the cmd prompt are: Decludeproc -v displays the version and build Decludeproc -i installs the decludeproc service Decludeproc -u uninstalls the decludeproc service David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew Dave - That's what I call catch 22: D:\IMail>decludeproc -diag Invalid command line parameter: -install Install Declude -diag Print diagnostics Hm - so let's see, after "-install", I used "-diag" to figure out what's wrong. But, "-diag" is invalid. The ony valid parameters are... "-install" and "-diag"? Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew Hi Dave, thanks. Next question: I noticed that your Virus.CFG is missing two options from Version 2: AUTOFORGE ON BANEZIPEXTS ON If I recall correctly, the idea was that: BANZIPEXTS OFF # BANEXT EZIP BANEZIPEXTS ON would PERMIT banned extensions inside zipped files (where they could be scanned), but DENY banned extensions if they were contained inside encrypted zipped files. Where those options forgotten in your config file - or are they no longer available in Version 3? Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Barker Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 02:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew The Program Files\Declude is a temp directory that can be deleted after the install. The original purpose of this directory was to make available the latest configs as we do not overwrite your configs. This has since been removed in version 4.x where you will find a \Declude\Resources directory which has the same purpose. David B www.declude.com ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew Hi, I'm trying to set up a server from scratch and thus downloaded and ran: Declude_IM_N310.exe and chose the option to let it do its install (rather than the option for "experienced" admins). PS - that screen has a typo! The setup created a C:\Program Files\Declude folder that contains just the 5 config files it also created the SAME files in: D:\Imail\Declude together with binaries and the various other Declude files. I'm at loss! Which location is the "right" one for the config files (I'm assuming the D:\Imail\Declude)? What's the point of creating a "dummy" Folder in the C:\Program Files\ that contains no programs and that contains files that are not being used at all (assuming that being the case)? Should I be deleting this Program Files folder to avoid confusion when someone else maintains this server? Come on, the cold war has been over since Reagan - are we still trying to confuse the Russians? Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 03:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x Andrew, Thanks for your notes and their history. I'm using the following settings right now: THREADS 30 WAITFORMAIL 500 WAITFORTHREADS 200 WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 WINSOCKCLEANUP OFF INVITEFIX ON AUTOREVIEW ON There are a few reasons for trying these values. THREADS 30 - I'm pretty confident that dual 3.2 Ghz Xeons and RAID can only handle 30 threads with average messages. In reality, one single message can spike the system to 100%, but these are uncommon. I figure that if I open this up too wide and I am dealing with a backup or something, launching more threads when at 100% CPU utilization will actually slow the system down. This was the same with 2.x and before. There is added overhead to managing threads and you don't want that to happen on top of 100% CPU utilization. I am going to back up my server later tonight to see if I can't find what the magic number is since I don't want to be below that magic number, and it would probably be best to be a little above it. WAITFORMAIL 500 - On my server, this never kicks in, but if it did, it wouldn't make sense to delay for too long because I could build up messages. A half second seems good. WAITFORTHREADS 200 - This apparently kicks in only when I reach my thread limit; sort of like a throttle. I don't want it to be too long because this should only happen when I am hammered, but it is wise not to keep hammering when you are at 100%. Sort of a mixed bag choice here. WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 - I see this setting as being the biggest issue with sizing a server. Setting it at 100 ms means that I can only handle 10 messages per second, and this establishes an upper limitfor what --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. |
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Decl... Andy Schmidt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Decl... David Barker
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Decl... Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in f... Andy Schmidt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Heimir Eidskrem
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... John T \(Lists\)
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Heimir Eidskrem
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Andy Schmidt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Andy Schmidt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... John T \(Lists\)
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Matt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Heimir Eidskrem
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Heimir Eidskrem
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF ... Andy Schmidt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Andy Schmidt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Dean Lawrence
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Heimir Eidskrem
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... John T \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Andy Schmidt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Dean Lawrence
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Warning -- August ... Heimir Eidskrem
