Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Windows Server TechCenter
 
 
 
Windows Server TechCenter > Windows Server Forums > WSUS > KB963707 0x80070643 duh XP WS never had FireFox or Framework Assistant 1.0!
Ask a questionAsk a question
Search Forums:
 

AnswerKB963707 0x80070643 duh XP WS never had FireFox or Framework Assistant 1.0!

  • Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:14 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    My bosses laptop (XP Pro) is causing "There are updates with installation errors. " messages on our 2k3 SBE server. The update is KB963707 and the error is 0x80070643 which is just a generic "it didn't work" error.
    I've checked the registry and that workstation NEVER had FireFox installed on it. The ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" was also never installed as far as I can tell... So I don't even understand why WSUS decided to install KB963707 on this WS in the first place.

    The WS doesn't need the update, but I can't figure out how to tell WSUS to stop worrying about it. I can Disapprove the update on the server for ALL the workstations, but there are others who need it. Telling the update manager on the individual workstation to ignore it, seems to have made the workstation happy, but WSUS on the server is still freaking out about this update having errors on this one workstation.

    Any advice on how to clear out this recurring error on my status reports?

    Here is the install event error info from the bosses workstation:

    Event Type: Error
    Event Source: Windows Update Agent
    Event Category: Installation 
    Event ID: 20
    Date: 6/30/2009
    Time: 2:19:23 PM
    User: N/A
    Computer: xxxxxxxxx
    Description:
    Installation Failure: Windows failed to install the following update with error 0x80070643: Update to .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 for the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 x86 (KB963707).

    For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
    Data:
    0000: 57 69 6e 33 32 48 52 65   Win32HRe
    0008: 73 75 6c 74 3d 30 78 38   sult=0x8
    0010: 30 30 37 30 36 34 33 20   0070643 
    0018: 55 70 64 61 74 65 49 44   UpdateID
    0020: 3d 7b 38 32 36 36 41 31   ={8266A1
    0028: 38 38 2d 38 46 30 36 2d   88-8F06-
    0030: 34 32 45 44 2d 41 42 44   42ED-ABD
    0038: 37 2d 35 45 34 36 37 45   7-5E467E
    0040: 39 41 41 44 38 31 7d 20   9AAD81} 
    0048: 52 65 76 69 73 69 6f 6e   Revision
    0050: 4e 75 6d 62 65 72 3d 31   Number=1
    0058: 30 32 20 00               02 .    

    and here is the matching entries from the WSUS log (C:\windows\WindowsUpdate.log) on that workstation: 

    2009-06-30	14:19:06:354	1276	ccc	Handler	Attempting to create remote handler process as EFPLUS2\TedW2 in session 0
2009-06-30	14:19:06:755	1276	ccc	DnldMgr	WARNING: Preparing update for install, updateId = {D5EA2F40-4DC6-4A9F-917E-17B169221B0D}.102 (using payload from revision 101).
2009-06-30	14:19:07:786	3640	14c0	Misc	===========  Logging initialized (build: 7.2.6001.788, tz: -0700)  ===========
2009-06-30	14:19:07:786	3640	14c0	Misc	  = Process: C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe
2009-06-30	14:19:07:796	3640	14c0	Misc	  = Module: C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuaueng.dll
2009-06-30	14:19:07:786	3640	14c0	Handler	:::::::::::::
2009-06-30	14:19:07:796	3640	14c0	Handler	:: START ::  Handler: Command Line Install
2009-06-30	14:19:07:796	3640	14c0	Handler	:::::::::
2009-06-30	14:19:07:796	3640	14c0	Handler	  : Updates to install = 1
2009-06-30	14:19:18:461	3640	14c0	Handler	  : WARNING: Command line install completed. Return code = 0x8007064c, Result = Failed, Reboot required = false
2009-06-30	14:19:18:461	3640	14c0	Handler	  : WARNING: Exit code = 0x8024200B
2009-06-30	14:19:18:461	3640	14c0	Handler	:::::::::
2009-06-30	14:19:18:461	3640	14c0	Handler	::  END  ::  Handler: Command Line Install
2009-06-30	14:19:18:461	3640	14c0	Handler	:::::::::::::
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	2cc	AU	Triggering Offline detection (non-interactive)
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	>>--  RESUMED  -- COMAPI: Install [ClientId = MicrosoftUpdate]
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	  - Install call complete (succeeded = 0, succeeded with errors = 0, failed = 1, unaccounted = 0)
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	  - Reboot required = No
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	  - WARNING: Exit code = 0x00000000; Call error code = 0x80240022
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	---------
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	--  END  --  COMAPI: Install [ClientId = MicrosoftUpdate]
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	4720	f9c	COMAPI	-------------
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	ccc	Agent	*********
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	ccc	Agent	**  END  **  Agent: Installing updates [CallerId = MicrosoftUpdate]
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	ccc	Agent	*************
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	2cc	AU	#############
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	2cc	AU	## START ##  AU: Search for updates
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	2cc	AU	#########
2009-06-30	14:19:19:343	1276	2cc	AU	<<## SUBMITTED ## AU: Search for updates [CallId = {11EC83F5-CC6E-43A3-B46F-5C872AA3418B}]
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	*************
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	** START **  Agent: Finding updates [CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	*********
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	  * Online = No; Ignore download priority = No
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	  * Criteria = "IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=0 and DeploymentAction='Installation' and IsAssigned=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsPresent=1 and DeploymentAction='Uninstallation' and IsAssigned=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=1 and DeploymentAction='Installation' and IsAssigned=1 and RebootRequired=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=0 and DeploymentAction='Uninstallation' and IsAssigned=1 and RebootRequired=1"
2009-06-30	14:19:19:353	1276	1408	Agent	  * ServiceID = {3DA21691-E39D-4DA6-8A4B-B43877BCB1B7}
2009-06-30	14:19:19:363	1276	1408	Agent	  * Search Scope = {Machine}
2009-06-30	14:19:20:244	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installed rule, updateId = {A901C1BD-989C-45C6-8DA0-8DDE8DBB69E0}.103, hr = 8024E001
2009-06-30	14:19:20:675	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {9378E1A9-E9FC-464A-A770-2EE7E1F3D513}.100, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:20:835	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {3C897489-76FC-4E20-890E-C3A75DF5F3A2}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:20:985	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {508C6349-D00C-47FF-9CEC-701CEF9CE0CC}.102, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:21:185	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {FD772E79-C784-4F74-8A3F-B59998FFA6AB}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:21:336	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {F7D21A5E-E892-4D08-A460-5D7C013284BA}.103, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:21:496	1276	1408	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {2669B77D-FD35-445F-B615-E189A0F7A41E}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-06-30	14:19:22:157	1276	1408	Agent	  * Added update {8266A188-8F06-42ED-ABD7-5E467E9AAD81}.101 to search result
2009-06-30	14:19:22:157	1276	1408	Agent	  * Found 1 updates and 52 categories in search; evaluated appl. rules of 305 out of 990 deployed entities
2009-06-30	14:19:22:157	1276	1408	Agent	*********
2009-06-30	14:19:22:157	1276	1408	Agent	**  END  **  Agent: Finding updates [CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
2009-06-30	14:19:22:157	1276	1408	Agent	*************
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	>>##  RESUMED  ## AU: Search for updates [CallId = {11EC83F5-CC6E-43A3-B46F-5C872AA3418B}]
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	  # 1 updates detected
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	#########
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	##  END  ##  AU: Search for updates [CallId = {11EC83F5-CC6E-43A3-B46F-5C872AA3418B}]
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	#############
2009-06-30	14:19:22:167	1276	298	AU	Setting AU scheduled install time to 2009-07-01 00:00:00
2009-06-30	14:19:23:499	1276	1408	Report	REPORT EVENT: {577401F1-A92B-45CD-8D25-65521878C2C4}	2009-06-30 14:19:18:492-0700	1	182	101	{8266A188-8F06-42ED-ABD7-5E467E9AAD81}	102	80070643	MicrosoftUpdate	Failure	Content Install	Installation Failure: Windows failed to install the following update with error 0x80070643: Update to .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 for the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 x86 (KB963707).
    Interestingly enough, the workstation seems to be reporting "all clear" to WSUS since I told it to ignore the update a couple days ago. Here is a more current excerpt from that same WSUS log on the workstation:

    2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	2cc	AU	#############
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	2cc	AU	## START ##  AU: Search for updates
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	2cc	AU	#########
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	2cc	AU	<<## SUBMITTED ## AU: Search for updates [CallId = {BC4AD4E5-6B48-441F-B289-504593D04023}]
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	*************
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	** START **  Agent: Finding updates [CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	*********
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	  * Online = Yes; Ignore download priority = No
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	  * Criteria = "IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=0 and DeploymentAction='Installation' and IsAssigned=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsPresent=1 and DeploymentAction='Uninstallation' and IsAssigned=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=1 and DeploymentAction='Installation' and IsAssigned=1 and RebootRequired=1 or IsHidden=0 and IsInstalled=0 and DeploymentAction='Uninstallation' and IsAssigned=1 and RebootRequired=1"
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	  * ServiceID = {3DA21691-E39D-4DA6-8A4B-B43877BCB1B7}
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Agent	  * Search Scope = {Machine}
2009-07-02	11:05:27:498	1276	9c8	Misc	Validating signature for C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\SelfUpdate\Default\wuident.cab:
2009-07-02	11:05:27:608	1276	9c8	Misc	 Microsoft signed: Yes
2009-07-02	11:05:27:638	1276	9c8	Misc	Validating signature for C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\SelfUpdate\Default\wuident.cab:
2009-07-02	11:05:27:648	1276	9c8	Misc	 Microsoft signed: Yes
2009-07-02	11:05:27:668	1276	9c8	Misc	Validating signature for C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\SelfUpdate\Default\wsus3setup.cab:
2009-07-02	11:05:27:678	1276	9c8	Misc	 Microsoft signed: Yes
2009-07-02	11:05:27:688	1276	9c8	Setup	***********  Setup: Checking whether self-update is required  ***********
2009-07-02	11:05:27:688	1276	9c8	Setup	  * Inf file: C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\SelfUpdate\Default\wsus3setup.inf
2009-07-02	11:05:27:838	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\cdm.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:169	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuapi.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:169	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuapi.dll.mui: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:249	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:339	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuaucpl.cpl: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:349	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuaucpl.cpl.mui: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:519	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuaueng.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:549	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuaueng.dll.mui: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:579	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wucltui.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:579	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wucltui.dll.mui: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:619	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wups.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:649	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wups2.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:699	1276	9c8	Setup	Update NOT required for C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuweb.dll: target version = 7.2.6001.788, required version = 7.1.6001.65
2009-07-02	11:05:28:699	1276	9c8	Setup	  * IsUpdateRequired = No
2009-07-02	11:05:43:711	1276	9c8	PT	+++++++++++  PT: Synchronizing server updates  +++++++++++
2009-07-02	11:05:43:711	1276	9c8	PT	  + ServiceId = {3DA21691-E39D-4DA6-8A4B-B43877BCB1B7}, Server URL = http://PDD840:8530/ClientWebService/client.asmx
2009-07-02	11:05:43:821	1276	9c8	PT	WARNING: Cached cookie has expired or new PID is available
2009-07-02	11:05:43:821	1276	9c8	PT	Initializing simple targeting cookie, clientId = 7f3acba4-f2cd-4bab-b042-d07323543525, target group = , DNS name = xxxxxxxxx.efplus.local
2009-07-02	11:05:43:821	1276	9c8	PT	  Server URL = http://PDD840:8530/SimpleAuthWebService/SimpleAuth.asmx
2009-07-02	11:05:44:312	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installed rule, updateId = {A901C1BD-989C-45C6-8DA0-8DDE8DBB69E0}.103, hr = 8024E001
2009-07-02	11:05:50:962	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {9378E1A9-E9FC-464A-A770-2EE7E1F3D513}.100, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:52:063	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {3C897489-76FC-4E20-890E-C3A75DF5F3A2}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:52:233	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {508C6349-D00C-47FF-9CEC-701CEF9CE0CC}.102, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:53:625	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {FD772E79-C784-4F74-8A3F-B59998FFA6AB}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:53:796	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {F7D21A5E-E892-4D08-A460-5D7C013284BA}.103, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:54:066	1276	9c8	Agent	WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {2669B77D-FD35-445F-B615-E189A0F7A41E}.101, hr = 8007066F
2009-07-02	11:05:59:584	1276	9c8	PT	+++++++++++  PT: Synchronizing extended update info  +++++++++++
2009-07-02	11:05:59:584	1276	9c8	PT	  + ServiceId = {3DA21691-E39D-4DA6-8A4B-B43877BCB1B7}, Server URL = http://PDD40:8530/ClientWebService/client.asmx
2009-07-02	11:06:21:376	1276	9c8	Agent	  * Found 0 updates and 52 categories in search; evaluated appl. rules of 545 out of 990 deployed entities
2009-07-02	11:06:22:187	1276	9c8	Agent	*********
2009-07-02	11:06:22:187	1276	9c8	Agent	**  END  **  Agent: Finding updates [CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
2009-07-02	11:06:22:187	1276	9c8	Agent	*************
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	>>##  RESUMED  ## AU: Search for updates [CallId = {BC4AD4E5-6B48-441F-B289-504593D04023}]
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	  # 0 updates detected
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	#########
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	##  END  ##  AU: Search for updates [CallId = {BC4AD4E5-6B48-441F-B289-504593D04023}]
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	#############
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	AU setting next detection timeout to 2009-07-02 19:05:24
2009-07-02	11:06:22:207	1276	260	AU	Setting AU scheduled install time to 2009-07-03 00:00:00
2009-07-02	11:06:27:224	1276	9c8	Report	REPORT EVENT: {CB8E88B6-3325-4868-B6CC-144EAC21F24E}	2009-07-02 11:06:22:187-0700	1	147	101	{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}	0	0	AutomaticUpdates	Success	Software Synchronization	Windows Update Client successfully detected 0 updates.
2009-07-02	11:06:27:224	1276	9c8	Report	REPORT EVENT: {931BF0F1-300A-45D6-A0B6-1D373A5C9DE9}	2009-07-02 11:06:22:187-0700	1	156	101	{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}	0	0	AutomaticUpdates	Success	Pre-Deployment Check	Reporting client status.
2009-07-02	11:17:27:901	1276	9c8	Report	Uploading 2 events using cached cookie, reporting URL = http://PEDDD40:8530/ReportingWebService/ReportingWebService.asmx
2009-07-02	11:17:27:931	1276	9c8	Report	Reporter successfully uploaded 2 events.
    So why isn't the server "getting the message"?
    • Edited byJames Newton Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:18 PMchanged workstation and server names... just being careful.
    •  
     

Answers

  • Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:01 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     Answer
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    Sign In to Vote
    I've checked the registry and that workstation NEVER had FireFox installed on it. The ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" was also never installed as far as I can tell... So I don't even understand why WSUS decided to install KB963707 on this WS in the first place.
    The issue here may be the misconception of the applicability of KB963707. The ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0 [for Firefox]" was installed by the .NET Framework v3.5 Service Pack 1 package -- regardless of whether Firefox was actually installed on the system or not. So that's where the primary defect in this whole fiasco starts from. Instead of packaging that particular "feature" as a separate "Feature Pack", applicable only to machine that actually DO have Firefox installed, the .NET Framework team continues their recent splurge of forcing updates/upgrades down everybody's throat.

    Unfortunately, to add insult to injury, there was a critical defect in the ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" that now needs to be corrected -- at least for those trying to use the feature with Firefox. KB963707 is designed to fix that problem. Unfortunately, it appears the package has it's own detection defects on top of that.

    Short answer: If you don't have Firefox installed on your machines, or don't care if the 'fix' provided by KB963707 is made available to your Firefox users -- my suggestion would be to DECLINE (and Ignore) KB963707.

    (And continue to send your feedback about the current management of the .NET Framework product familiy to Microsoft.)
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     

All Replies

  • Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:01 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     Answer
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    Sign In to Vote
    I've checked the registry and that workstation NEVER had FireFox installed on it. The ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" was also never installed as far as I can tell... So I don't even understand why WSUS decided to install KB963707 on this WS in the first place.
    The issue here may be the misconception of the applicability of KB963707. The ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0 [for Firefox]" was installed by the .NET Framework v3.5 Service Pack 1 package -- regardless of whether Firefox was actually installed on the system or not. So that's where the primary defect in this whole fiasco starts from. Instead of packaging that particular "feature" as a separate "Feature Pack", applicable only to machine that actually DO have Firefox installed, the .NET Framework team continues their recent splurge of forcing updates/upgrades down everybody's throat.

    Unfortunately, to add insult to injury, there was a critical defect in the ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" that now needs to be corrected -- at least for those trying to use the feature with Firefox. KB963707 is designed to fix that problem. Unfortunately, it appears the package has it's own detection defects on top of that.

    Short answer: If you don't have Firefox installed on your machines, or don't care if the 'fix' provided by KB963707 is made available to your Firefox users -- my suggestion would be to DECLINE (and Ignore) KB963707.

    (And continue to send your feedback about the current management of the .NET Framework product familiy to Microsoft.)
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     
  • Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:06 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    Sign In to Vote
    The WS doesn't need the update, but I can't figure out how to tell WSUS to stop worrying about it. I can Disapprove the update on the server for ALL the workstations, but there are others who need it. Telling the update manager on the individual workstation to ignore it, seems to have made the workstation happy, but WSUS on the server is still freaking out about this update having errors on this one workstation.

    Any advice on how to clear out this recurring error on my status reports?


    The methodology to deal with this particular scenario (and others like it), is to create a special WSUS Target Group, perhaps named "Needs KB963707". Only approve the update for THAT group. Add machines to that group who need the update -- either permanently, or long enough to get the update detected and installed.

    Leave the update "Not Approved" for all other groups.

    The *errors* on the workstation are caused because the update is still Approved for installation, even though it's Hidden. Hiding updates only works when the hiding is done before the authorization to install is put into effect. Once an update is installable, hiding doesn't do any good.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:27 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    Lawrence, I really appreciate your input and advice on this, and in the future, I will be a bit more careful about approving updates for everyone.

    HOWEVER, the issue here is how do I get out of the situation that I am already in? 

    I've tried to change that update to Declined, and that seems to have removed the error in the "Update Services" system, but I still get "There are updates with installation errors." in my Server Performance Report and in Server Management under Update Services / Installation Errors, the bosses laptop is still listed as having 11 installation errors.

    Any advice on how to clear that out so the boss will stop freaking?

    Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond...
     
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:35 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    (And continue to send your feedback about the current management of the .NET Framework product familiy to Microsoft.)
    That, I have done, my friend. At least by the feedback form on the bottom of the KB page. Any other suggestions for places to send my feedback?
     
  • Wednesday, July 08, 2009 5:20 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    HOWEVER, the issue here is how do I get out of the situation that I am already in? 

    I've tried to change that update to Declined, and that seems to have removed the error in the "Update Services" system, but I still get "There are updates with installation errors." in my Server Performance Report and in Server Management under Update Services / Installation Errors, the bosses laptop is still listed as having 11 installation errors.

    Any advice on how to clear that out so the boss will stop freaking?

    Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond...

    Well, you found how to clear the primary issue -- set the update to "Not Approved" or "Declined" so it's no longer applicable.

    However, =ELEVEN= installation errors is a totally different scenario from =ONE= installation error on this particular update -- so maybe he should be freaking, and maybe you should find out what caused the other =TEN= updates to also fail installation.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     
  • Friday, July 10, 2009 3:53 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote

    Well, you found how to clear the primary issue -- set the update to "Not Approved" or "Declined" so it's no longer applicable.

    However, =ELEVEN= installation errors is a totally different scenario from =ONE= installation error on this particular update -- so maybe he should be freaking, and maybe you should find out what caused the other =TEN= updates to also fail installation.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

    Nope, all 11 appear to be seperate instances of attempts to install this ONE update. There are NO other installations with errors. Unless I'm missing where you look for this... 
     
  • Friday, July 10, 2009 6:53 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    Sign In to Vote

    Nope, all 11 appear to be seperate instances of attempts to install this ONE update.
    Ahh.. so there's really only =ONE= update failing installation --  =ONE= installation error, occuring several times -- that's a significant difference from "11 installation errors".

    So, we've essentialy already answered this question then, based on your own research:
    Set the update to "Not Approved" or "Declined" so it's no longer applicable.

    You won't eliminate anything on the client-side because that information is an actual HISTORY of events that have transpired and are an accurate reflection of the HISTORICAL activities of that system.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     
  • Friday, July 10, 2009 8:08 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote


    So, we've essentialy already answered this question then, based on your own research:
    Set the update to "Not Approved" or "Declined" so it's no longer applicable.

    You won't eliminate anything on the client-side because that information is an actual HISTORY of events that have transpired and are an accurate reflection of the HISTORICAL activities of that system.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

    Err... ok... so I just have to live with the constant "There are updates with installation errors." in my Server Performance Report and in Server Management under Update Services / Installation Errors? No way to clear those out? Or will they clear out over time?

     
  • Friday, July 10, 2009 8:37 PMLawrence GarvinMVP, ModeratorUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    Sign In to Vote

    Err... ok... so I just have to live with the constant "There are updates with installation errors." in my Server Performance Report and in Server Management under Update Services / Installation Errors? No way to clear those out? Or will they clear out over time?


    The items in your Server Performance Report are likely coming from the Event Logs. You can clear event logs using normal event log management features.

    I'm not sure how they're being generated for the Server Management utility -- but possibly the same source (Event Log).

    I am a bit confuzed, though, because I thought the *problem* was the listing of failed installation events on your bosses PC. They'll be cleared up if/when the update is successfully installed -- although the historical event of the failure(s) will always be present.
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
     
  • Friday, July 10, 2009 8:57 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    The items in your Server Performance Report are likely coming from the Event Logs. You can clear event logs using normal event log management features.

    I'm not sure how they're being generated for the Server Management utility -- but possibly the same source (Event Log).


    Ah... ok, I'll see if I can clear it out that way...


    I am a bit confuzed, though, because I thought the *problem* was the listing of failed installation events on your bosses PC. They'll be cleared up if/when the update is successfully installed -- although the historical event of the failure(s) will always be present.


    The boss sees the Performance Report... His PC is not complaining anymore (since I told it to ignore the update), and the server update system is not complaining anymore (since I denied the update as per your advice), it's just that Performance Report and the Server Management thing under the updates section.

    Thanks again for all your help.
     
  • Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:43 PMJames Newton Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Sign In to Vote
    Over a period of a few days, the error message cleared out on its own. It apparently only looks back so far in the logs. From my point of view, problem solved.