|
|
aHi,
I recently upgraded my WSUS 2.0 server to 3.0. I have now noticed that none
of my clients are not updating and all are generating a 0x80244019 error. I
have no errors in my event logs and everything seems to be running normally
on my WSUS server. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Thanks, already knew that. Any ideas on a fix? I'm seeing a lot of posts of
this problem on the web, but no one seems to have a solution. Do you?
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote:
[Quoted Text]
|
|
"Jimmy K" <JimmyK[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E6DB9964-9EE5-466D-811C-3F237555D206[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] >> > I recently upgraded my WSUS 2.0 server to 3.0. I have now noticed that
>> > none
>> > of my clients are not updating and all are generating a 0x80244019
>> > error.
>> > I
>> > have no errors in my event logs and everything seems to be running
>> > normally
>> > on my WSUS server. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>> 0x80244019 - SUS E PT HTTP STATUS NOT FOUND
>> HTTP Status 404 - object not found
> Thanks, already knew that. Any ideas on a fix?
Not without more specific information from you. I'd hoped that pointing out
that the issue was an "object not found", that you might indicate *WHAT*
object is not being found. Then we'll have some direction to go.
> I'm seeing a lot of posts of
> this problem on the web, but no one seems to have a solution. Do you?
There are a gazillion solutions, depending on which of a gazillion reasons
you might be getting the '404' error.
Those who aren't getting solutions to '404' errors are probably suffering
for lack of details, as this issue is at the moment. :-)
So.... what does the WindowsUpdate.log say about what's triggering that
0x80244019 (HTTP '404' error)?
For the record, there's nothing that I'm aware of in the WSUS2>WSUS3 upgrade
process that would suddenly generate '404' errors, unless some abnormal
configuration caused a resource to be deleted that shouldn't have been
deleted. Can you comment a bit more on the exact procedure used to upgrade
your system (and specifics about type of system) from WSUS 2 to WSUS 3?
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Independent WSUS Evangelist
MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007)
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E
Everything you need for WSUS is at
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx
And, almost everything else is at
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
.....
|
|
Hi,
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
> For the record, there's nothing that I'm aware of in the WSUS2>WSUS3 upgrade
> process that would suddenly generate '404' errors, unless some abnormal
> configuration caused a resource to be deleted that shouldn't have been
> deleted.
Actually, there *is* something that causes this for an increasing number
of users. The WSUS 3.0 upgrade will change any non-default port
configuration of the WSUS website to the default of 8530 without warning
or notice, but will leave a default website setup on port 80 which at
least has the selfupdate tree, but not much more than that. At least
that's the case for the WSUS3.0 update delivered through WSUS itself. So
anybody running the previous WSUS server on anything other than port
8530 will end up in this situation.
CU,
Massimo
|
|
"Massimo Rosen" <mrosenno[ at ]spamcfc-it.de> wrote in message
news:466DC5CA.5577E980[ at ]spamcfc-it.de...
[Quoted Text] >> For the record, there's nothing that I'm aware of in the WSUS2>WSUS3
>> upgrade
>> process that would suddenly generate '404' errors, unless some abnormal
>> configuration caused a resource to be deleted that shouldn't have been
>> deleted.
> Actually, there *is* something that causes this for an increasing number
> of users. The WSUS 3.0 upgrade will change any non-default port
> configuration of the WSUS website to the default of 8530 without warning
> or notice, but will leave a default website setup on port 80 which at
> least has the selfupdate tree, but not much more than that.
As noted in a previous reply, it doesn't actually do this "without warning",
although you may have buzzed through the "notice" screen during the
installation/upgrade without noticing.
It's also worth noting that if by "non-default port configuration" you mean
any WSUS server not running on port 80 or port 8530 (i.e. something that was
*customized* post-installation), then you're absolutely right. The
installer/upgrader only knows two ports. Either it upgrades an existing site
on the Default Web Site, or it 'upgrades' whatever it finds and installs it
on an alternate virtual server and assigns it port 8530.
If you want to "re-customize" your port number, that's a
post-installation/post-upgrade *customization*. Surely you didn't expect
Microsoft to write the documentation for the one of a hundred thousand
people who actually felt that port 8530 wasn't obscure enough to host a WSUS
Server upon?
> At least
> that's the case for the WSUS3.0 update delivered through WSUS itself. So
> anybody running the previous WSUS server on anything other than port
> 8530 will end up in this situation.
Just to clarify. A WSUS server running on the *Default Web Site* will be
upgraded on, and remain on, the *Default Web Site*.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Independent WSUS Evangelist
MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007)
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E
Everything you need for WSUS is at
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx
And, almost everything else is at
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
.....
|
|
Lawrence,
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
> "Massimo Rosen" <mrosenno[ at ]spamcfc-it.de> wrote in message
> news:466DC5CA.5577E980[ at ]spamcfc-it.de...
>
> > Actually, there *is* something that causes this for an increasing number
> > of users. The WSUS 3.0 upgrade will change any non-default port
> > configuration of the WSUS website to the default of 8530 without warning
> > or notice, but will leave a default website setup on port 80 which at
> > least has the selfupdate tree, but not much more than that.
>
> As noted in a previous reply, it doesn't actually do this "without warning",
> although you may have buzzed through the "notice" screen during the
> installation/upgrade without noticing.
And a snoted in my previous reply, at the very least the WSUS3.0 update
delivered through WSUS itself *does* do that without warning.
> It's also worth noting that if by "non-default port configuration" you mean
> any WSUS server not running on port 80 or port 8530 (i.e. something that was
> *customized* post-installation), then you're absolutely right.
No, I mean any WSUS Server running on *anything* other than 8530, that
explicitly includes 80, that too will get chnaged to 8530 (as this is
exactly what happened to me yesterday).
> If you want to "re-customize" your port number, that's a
> post-installation/post-upgrade *customization*. Surely you didn't expect
> Microsoft to write the documentation for the one of a hundred thousand
> people who actually felt that port 8530 wasn't obscure enough to host a WSUS
> Server upon?
Actually, I expected Microsoft to properly detect the current port the
WSUS website is running on, and not change that during an upgrade, and
if they were unable to do that (which would really really surprise me,
are you telling me it's a difficult or impossible task to detect the
current port?), present a *CLEAR and actually *HUGE* extra warning that
can't be overlooked, that after the update your WSUS infrastructure will
fail with obscure errors.
> Just to clarify. A WSUS server running on the *Default Web Site* will be
> upgraded on, and remain on, the *Default Web Site*.
Again, *NO*. I just did that.
CU,
Massimo
|
|
"Massimo Rosen" <mrosenno[ at ]spamcfc-it.de> wrote in message
news:466E42FF.93CCEDB9[ at ]spamcfc-it.de...
[Quoted Text] >> > Actually, there *is* something that causes this for an increasing
>> > number
>> > of users. The WSUS 3.0 upgrade will change any non-default port
>> > configuration of the WSUS website to the default of 8530 without
>> > warning
>> > or notice, but will leave a default website setup on port 80 which at
>> > least has the selfupdate tree, but not much more than that.
>>
>> As noted in a previous reply, it doesn't actually do this "without
>> warning",
>> although you may have buzzed through the "notice" screen during the
>> installation/upgrade without noticing.
>
> And a snoted in my previous reply, at the very least the WSUS3.0 update
> delivered through WSUS itself *does* do that without warning.
>
>> It's also worth noting that if by "non-default port configuration" you
>> mean
>> any WSUS server not running on port 80 or port 8530 (i.e. something that
>> was
>> *customized* post-installation), then you're absolutely right.
>
> No, I mean any WSUS Server running on *anything* other than 8530, that
> explicitly includes 80, that too will get chnaged to 8530 (as this is
> exactly what happened to me yesterday).
Well... Massimo... I've just gone through a boatload of installation/upgrade
scenarios, and I didn't observe anything like this behavior at all.
But, just to be sure, I'm going to give it one more shot. If you can provide
me with the exact scenario in which you applied this WSUS3 upgrade and had
it switch ports on you, that would help -- including a list of other web
applications installed to the Default Web Site *after* the installation of
WSUS2.
>> If you want to "re-customize" your port number, that's a
>> post-installation/post-upgrade *customization*. Surely you didn't expect
>> Microsoft to write the documentation for the one of a hundred thousand
>> people who actually felt that port 8530 wasn't obscure enough to host a
>> WSUS
>> Server upon?
>
> Actually, I expected Microsoft to properly detect the current port the
> WSUS website is running on, and not change that during an upgrade,
Pending your providing of explicit scenario details in which I could
reproduce this behavior.. if true, I'll be the very first to ask quite
loudly why this happened. In the meantime, I trust that you'll forgive and
excuse my skepticism.
> and
> if they were unable to do that (which would really really surprise me,
> are you telling me it's a difficult or impossible task to detect the
> current port?), present a *CLEAR and actually *HUGE* extra warning that
> can't be overlooked, that after the update your WSUS infrastructure will
> fail with obscure errors.
No, really I'm saying it's a non issue because I do not believe that is
what's happening.
Furthermore, the documentation is pretty clear that if the port 80 server is
not usable, the installer *WILL* install WSUS onto an alternate virtual
server at port 8530. So the question here would be one of convincing me that
the port 80 server was absolutely usable.
>> Just to clarify. A WSUS server running on the *Default Web Site* will be
>> upgraded on, and remain on, the *Default Web Site*.
>
> Again, *NO*. I just did that.
Then I'd suggest that *something* was also installed on the Default Web Site
that was interfering with resources WSUS needs to execute an installation on
the Default Web Site.
In the meantime, I'm genning up a virgin Win2003EESP1 system to install
WSUS2SP1 on the DWS, and then execute a WSUS3 upgrade. I'll post back the
results. (Should only take a couple of hours.)
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Independent WSUS Evangelist
MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007)
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E
Everything you need for WSUS is at
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx
And, almost everything else is at
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
.....
|
|
Hi,
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
> But, just to be sure, I'm going to give it one more shot. If you can provide
> me with the exact scenario in which you applied this WSUS3 upgrade and had
> it switch ports on you, that would help -- including a list of other web
> applications installed to the Default Web Site *after* the installation of
> WSUS2.
Plain W2003 Standard Server with SP1 and all post-SP1 patches (no SP2
yet) running *only* WSUS2.0SP1 on the default website on port 80 for I
don't know how long succesfully. No other websites whatsoever served by
that box, nor does that server any other tasks, it's just for WSUS only.
The Server originally *was* running SUS1.0, and was updated to WSUS2.0.
That server was updated to WSUS3.0 *via WSUS*, e.g I let the server
detect WSUS3.0 as a necessary patch and manually allowed it to install
it via the WSUS tray icon. I mention that, just in case that it makes a
difference, as you seem to say there is mentioning somewhere of the port
the completeld WSUS3.0 update will run on, which was *not* the case in
that scenario, but which might well be attributed to the fact that it
was delvered via WSUS, and not a manual upgrade.
> >
> > Actually, I expected Microsoft to properly detect the current port the
> > WSUS website is running on, and not change that during an upgrade,
>
> Pending your providing of explicit scenario details in which I could
> reproduce this behavior.. if true, I'll be the very first to ask quite
> loudly why this happened. In the meantime, I trust that you'll forgive and
> excuse my skepticism.
Skepticism in what way? Do you say you don't believe that my WSUS2.0
server was running on port 80, and after the update to WSUS3.0 it ran on
8530 suddenly?
I don't quite care *why* that happened really, the fact that it happens,
and that it's very apparent from postings here and elsewhere on the web,
that it happened not only to me, is what counts. IMHO, under no
whatsoever weird circumstance, is it acceptable that an (otherwise
successful) update from WSUS2.0 to 3.0 changes the port the website is
running on without warning. *If*, as you say, during the installation it
indeed finds the current IIS instance WSUS is running on unuseable (for
whatever reason), and it then decides to introduce a new instance, it
should either stop, present an error and ask the admin for confirmation,
*or* continue to do it, but then later (for instance in the first run
wizard) present a *clear* and unignorable waarning that it had to do
this and that it's now runnign on a different port.
> > and
> > if they were unable to do that (which would really really surprise me,
> > are you telling me it's a difficult or impossible task to detect the
> > current port?), present a *CLEAR and actually *HUGE* extra warning that
> > can't be overlooked, that after the update your WSUS infrastructure will
> > fail with obscure errors.
>
> No, really I'm saying it's a non issue because I do not believe that is
> what's happening.
See, you're doing it again. (See other discussion). So I'm seeing ghosts
I guess. Good, that will help me lead a happy life.
> Furthermore, the documentation is pretty clear that if the port 80 server is
> not usable, the installer *WILL* install WSUS onto an alternate virtual
> server at port 8530. So the question here would be one of convincing me that
> the port 80 server was absolutely usable.
Au contraire. Convince me that it wasn't (when all it previously did was
to serve WSUS2.0SP1 succesfully for many months). And as I said above,
even if it wasn't, the handling of that situation by the installer
leaves *a lot* to be desired, completely regardless if documented or
not.
> >> Just to clarify. A WSUS server running on the *Default Web Site* will be
> >> upgraded on, and remain on, the *Default Web Site*.
> >
> > Again, *NO*. I just did that.
>
> Then I'd suggest that *something* was also installed on the Default Web Site
> that was interfering with resources WSUS needs to execute an installation on
> the Default Web Site.
*I* wouldn't know what. At any rate, nothing third party or manually
introduced. And as I said, the default website is still there after the
upgrade, but all it contains is an *UPDATED* "Selfupdate" tree,
"CientWebservice", "aspnet_client", and 6 files in the root, namely
aucatalog1.cab, aurtf1.cab, iisstart.htm, iuident.cab, pagerror.gif and
WUTRACK.BIN. I fixed the problem now by changing the default website to
port 81, and then chnage the WSUS instance to port 80, and recreate the
server entry in the MCC console (unfortunately there doesn't seem to be
a way to edit an existing server entry) on the proper port. Sounds much
easier to me than to chnage the GPO for all clients.
> In the meantime, I'm genning up a virgin Win2003EESP1 system to install
> WSUS2SP1 on the DWS, and then execute a WSUS3 upgrade. I'll post back the
> results. (Should only take a couple of hours.)
If you really want to test exactly my scenario, first install SUS1.0,
then update that by following the WSUS2.0 upgrade documentation to the
letter, update that to SP1, and finally let WSUS3.0 update itself via
WSUS.
CU,
Massimo
|
|
"Massimo Rosen" <mrosenno[ at ]spamcfc-it.de> wrote in message
news:466FFE61.B43CB092[ at ]spamcfc-it.de...
[Quoted Text] >> But, just to be sure, I'm going to give it one more shot. If you can
>> provide
>> me with the exact scenario in which you applied this WSUS3 upgrade and
>> had
>> it switch ports on you, that would help -- including a list of other web
>> applications installed to the Default Web Site *after* the installation
>> of
>> WSUS2.
> Plain W2003 Standard Server with SP1 and all post-SP1 patches (no SP2
> yet) running *only* WSUS2.0SP1 on the default website on port 80 for I
> don't know how long succesfully. No other websites whatsoever served by
> that box, nor does that server any other tasks, it's just for WSUS only.
> The Server originally *was* running SUS1.0, and was updated to WSUS2.0.
BINGO!!!!!
Did you read the release notes? SUS 1.0 has to be *FULLY* uninstalled in
order to successfully upgrade to WSUS 3.0.
I'd venture a guess that the WSUS3 installer saw the remanants of the SUS
1.0 on the Default Web Site and determined that it was "in use", so chose
the alternate virtual server to install the product.
> Skepticism in what way? Do you say you don't believe that my WSUS2.0
> server was running on port 80, and after the update to WSUS3.0 it ran on
> 8530 suddenly?
Not if your server was truly a virgin WSUS 2.0 SP1 installation... which it
now appears that it wasn't. :-)
>> Furthermore, the documentation is pretty clear that if the port 80 server
>> is
>> not usable, the installer *WILL* install WSUS onto an alternate virtual
>> server at port 8530. So the question here would be one of convincing me
>> that
>> the port 80 server was absolutely usable.
>
> Au contraire. Convince me that it wasn't (when all it previously did was
> to serve WSUS2.0SP1 succesfully for many months).
You had remnants of SUS 1.0 still installed, I'd guess. A documented issue.
>> Then I'd suggest that *something* was also installed on the Default Web
>> Site
>> that was interfering with resources WSUS needs to execute an installation
>> on
>> the Default Web Site.
>
> *I* wouldn't know what.
But, we do now. :-)
> At any rate, nothing third party or manually
> introduced. And as I said, the default website is still there after the
> upgrade, but all it contains is an *UPDATED* "Selfupdate" tree,
> "CientWebservice", "aspnet_client", and 6 files in the root, namely
> aucatalog1.cab, aurtf1.cab, iisstart.htm, iuident.cab, pagerror.gif and
> WUTRACK.BIN.
Consider that the aucatalog1.cab and aurtf1.cab are SUS 1.0 files, and
that's the definitive answer to your question.
>> In the meantime, I'm genning up a virgin Win2003EESP1 system to install
>> WSUS2SP1 on the DWS, and then execute a WSUS3 upgrade. I'll post back the
>> results. (Should only take a couple of hours.)
>
> If you really want to test exactly my scenario, first install SUS1.0,
> then update that by following the WSUS2.0 upgrade documentation to the
> letter, update that to SP1, and finally let WSUS3.0 update itself via
> WSUS.
No need to.. because now that you've shared the upgrade from SUS 1.0 to WSUS
2.0 I know exactly what caused the problem. And the 'fix' is to uninstall
"Software Update Services 1.0" from Add/Remove Programs, repair the
/selfupdate virtual directory, and remove any remnants of SUS 1.0 in the
Default Web Site that might not have been cleaned out properly by the SUS
uninstaller.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Independent WSUS Evangelist
MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007)
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E
Everything you need for WSUS is at
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx
And, almost everything else is at
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
.....
|
|
Lawrence,
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
> "Massimo Rosen" <mrosenno[ at ]spamcfc-it.de> wrote in message
> news:466FFE61.B43CB092[ at ]spamcfc-it.de...
>
> >> But, just to be sure, I'm going to give it one more shot. If you can
> >> provide
> >> me with the exact scenario in which you applied this WSUS3 upgrade and
> >> had
> >> it switch ports on you, that would help -- including a list of other web
> >> applications installed to the Default Web Site *after* the installation
> >> of
> >> WSUS2.
>
> > Plain W2003 Standard Server with SP1 and all post-SP1 patches (no SP2
> > yet) running *only* WSUS2.0SP1 on the default website on port 80 for I
> > don't know how long succesfully. No other websites whatsoever served by
> > that box, nor does that server any other tasks, it's just for WSUS only.
>
> > The Server originally *was* running SUS1.0, and was updated to WSUS2.0.
>
> BINGO!!!!!
No, sorry.
> Did you read the release notes? SUS 1.0 has to be *FULLY* uninstalled in
> order to successfully upgrade to WSUS 3.0.
Yes, it was completely uninstalled, otherwise WSUS doesn't even offer
WSUS3.0 as update to the server. You remember the other thread? <g>
>
> Not if your server was truly a virgin WSUS 2.0 SP1 installation... which it
> now appears that it wasn't. :-)
I never said it was *virgin*, did I?
> >> Furthermore, the documentation is pretty clear that if the port 80 server
> >> is
> >> not usable, the installer *WILL* install WSUS onto an alternate virtual
> >> server at port 8530. So the question here would be one of convincing me
> >> that
> >> the port 80 server was absolutely usable.
> >
> > Au contraire. Convince me that it wasn't (when all it previously did was
> > to serve WSUS2.0SP1 succesfully for many months).
>
> You had remnants of SUS 1.0 still installed, I'd guess. A documented issue.
*If* I had remnants of 1.0 still in the website (soething impossible to
prove now), only because the SUS unistaller didn'T do it's job properly.
Again, not my problem, but one *many* WSUS admins will run into (as
*many* WSUS servers have started their life as SUS boxes).
> >> Then I'd suggest that *something* was also installed on the Default Web
> >> Site
> >> that was interfering with resources WSUS needs to execute an installation
> >> on
> >> the Default Web Site.
> >
> > *I* wouldn't know what.
>
> But, we do now. :-)
I'm surprised you're so convinced. I suggest we (you) go ahead and ask
all the other users here reporting the same issue (there are plenty, in
case you haven't noticed), if their server too has started it's life as
SUS1.0. *if* that's the case, you can be quite certain this plays a role
in the issue, but nevertheless, it's still microsofts issue.
> > At any rate, nothing third party or manually
> > introduced. And as I said, the default website is still there after the
> > upgrade, but all it contains is an *UPDATED* "Selfupdate" tree,
> > "CientWebservice", "aspnet_client", and 6 files in the root, namely
> > aucatalog1.cab, aurtf1.cab, iisstart.htm, iuident.cab, pagerror.gif and
> > WUTRACK.BIN.
>
> Consider that the aucatalog1.cab and aurtf1.cab are SUS 1.0 files, and
> that's the definitive answer to your question.
I don't have a question. I have a statement, which is that my and many
other *working* WSUS2.0 servers were broken after the update to WSUS3.0
by changing their website port *without warning*. That statement stands,
and it's IMNSHO opinion a pretty severe shortcoming (some would even
<gasp> outright call it a BUG) in WSUS3.
>
> No need to.. because now that you've shared the upgrade from SUS 1.0 to WSUS
> 2.0 I know exactly what caused the problem. And the 'fix' is to uninstall
> "Software Update Services 1.0" from Add/Remove Programs, repair the
> /selfupdate virtual directory, and remove any remnants of SUS 1.0 in the
> Default Web Site that might not have been cleaned out properly by the SUS
> uninstaller.
You're jumping to conclusions again. SUS1.0 *was* unistalled from
ADD/Remove Programs prior to the installation of WSUS3.0, again, because
otherwise WSUS doesn't even offer WSUS3.0 as needed update to a WSUS2.0
server.
CU,
Massimo
|
|
|