locked
Content Status not reflecting actual status RRS feed

  • Question

  • Here's a new one that appeared to start happening in the last couple of days.  When I update the Distribution Point for a package (doesnt seem to be all packages/applications at this point) the DP does get updated and shows in the logs it successfully process the package yet the content status will stay at "In progress".  The package functions perfectly after its updated (i.e. no version conflicts when deployin the app).

    Just simply appear that whatever table populates that content status in the Admin console does not get properly updated.

    Anyone else see this? Again, I have an application that was just updated and it reflects properly in the content status.  The 2 I know for sure right now is one "package" and my custom boot image package.  I have updated the DP's a few times since this issue appeared and it still sticks with In progress.

    Friday, January 25, 2013 9:36 PM

Answers

All replies

  • I recreated the package in question and its working fine (for now).  I say for now becuase now another one of my packages that as been working fine is now doing the same thing.  Its only happening thus far against my secondary site.  Its updates quickly to the 2 DP's on my primary site.

    Again the package makes it there just fine and works, just stuck showing "in progress" for the content status.

    Anyone else seeing this issue?

    Monday, January 28, 2013 8:59 PM
  • Adding some log data.  Everything that I can see "appears" to working as expected according to the logs but obviously not being reflected in the console.  Hoping maybe someone can spot an issue that I am overlooking or can point to what other logs I might look for issues in.

    Here some data from the Sender.log after updating the distribution points (from the secondary site server that shows In progress):
    Retrieved the snapshot for priority 2, there are 1 files in the snapshot. SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    Found send request.  ID: 2020SS10, Dest Site: P10 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    We have 0 active connections SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    Checking for site-specific sending capacity.  Used 0 out of 3. SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    We have 0 active connections SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    Created sending thread (Thread ID = A00) SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    COutbox::TakeNextToSend(pszSiteCode) SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    No (more) send requests found to process. SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    Waiting for new/rescheduled send requests, Maximum Sleep Time = 60 minutes SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 3432 (0x0D68)
    Trying the No. 1 address (out of 1) SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Passed the xmit file test, use the existing connection SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Package file = D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.Ph8 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Instruction file = D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.I1u SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Checking for remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:10 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Checking for remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.SNI SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Checking for remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to create/open the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Created/opened the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to create/open the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Created/opened the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Sending Started [D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.Ph8] SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to write 835 bytes to \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK at position 0 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Wrote 835 bytes to \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.PCK at position 0 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Sending completed [D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.Ph8] SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to create/open the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Created/opened the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to create/open the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Created/opened the remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Sending Started [D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.I1u] SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Attempt to write 652 bytes to \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP at position 0 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Wrote 652 bytes to \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP at position 0 SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Sending completed [D:\SCCM\inboxes\schedule.box\tosend\00000A3C.I1u] SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Renaming remote file \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP to \\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.SNI SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Rename completed [\\MYPRIMARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMS_SITE\2020SS10.TMP] SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    Sending completed successfully SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)
    COutbox::TakeNextToSend(pszSiteCode) SMS_LAN_SENDER 1/29/2013 9:18:11 AM 2560 (0x0A00)

    Here's some data from Distmgr.log (again from the secondary site):

    Found package properties updated notification for package 'P1000084' SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:20:56 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Found notification for package 'P1000084' SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:01 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Used 0 out of 3 allowed processing threads. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:01 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Starting package processing thread, thread ID = 0xEC4 (3780) SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:02 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Sleep 3600 seconds... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:02 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    STATMSG: ID=2300 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=3780 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:21:02.520 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="P1000084" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:02 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Start updating the package P1000084... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:02 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    The Package Action is 1, the Update Mask is 32 and UpdateMaskEx is 0. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:02 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Use drive D for storing the compressed package. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Successfully created/updated the package P1000084 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    STATMSG: ID=2311 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=3780 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:21:03.067 2013 ISTR0="P1000084" ISTR1="" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    The PkgServer action is none and Package update mask is 32 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:03 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Start updating the package on server ["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Will wait for 1 threads to end. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Thread Handle = 000000000000110C SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Attempting to add or update a package on a distribution point. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3228 (0x0C9C)
    The distribution point is on the siteserver and the package is a content type package. There is nothing to be copied over. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3228 (0x0C9C)
    STATMSG: ID=2342 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=3228 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:21:04.911 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=2 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" AID1=404 AVAL1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3228 (0x0C9C)
    The contents for the package P1000084 hasn't arrived from site P10 yet, will retry later. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3228 (0x0C9C)
    STATMSG: ID=2372 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=3228 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:21:04.958 2013 ISTR0="P1000084" ISTR1="P10" ISTR2="S10" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3228 (0x0C9C)
    DP thread with array index 0 ended. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:04 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    DP thread with thread handle 000000000000110C and thread ID 3228 ended. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Package P1000084 does not have a preferred sender. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    CDistributionSrcSQL::UpdateAvailableVersion PackageID=P1000084, Version=7, Status=2301 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    StoredPkgVersion (6) of package P1000084. StoredPkgVersion in database is 6. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    SourceVersion (7) of package P1000084. SourceVersion in database is 7. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    STATMSG: ID=2301 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=3780 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:21:05.645 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="P1000084" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Exiting package processing thread. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:05 AM 3780 (0x0EC4)
    Sleep 30 minutes... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:21:06 AM 3320 (0x0CF8)


    Distmgr.log A couple of minutes later:
    Found notification for package 'P1000084' SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:12 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Used 0 out of 3 allowed processing threads. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:12 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Sleep 30 minutes... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:12 AM 3320 (0x0CF8)
    Starting package processing thread, thread ID = 0x11E8 (4584) SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    Sleep 3600 seconds... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 2968 (0x0B98)
    STATMSG: ID=2300 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=4584 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:23:13.154 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="P1000084" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Start updating the package P1000084... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    The Package Action is 1, the Update Mask is 160 and UpdateMaskEx is 0. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Use drive D for storing the compressed package. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Successfully created/updated the package P1000084 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    STATMSG: ID=2311 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=4584 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:23:13.701 2013 ISTR0="P1000084" ISTR1="" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:13 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Start updating the package on server ["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:14 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Attempting to add or update a package on a distribution point. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:14 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    The distribution point is on the siteserver and the package is a content type package. There is nothing to be copied over. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:14 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Will wait for 1 threads to end. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:14 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Thread Handle = 0000000000001684 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:14 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    STATMSG: ID=2342 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=1768 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:23:15.389 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=2 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" AID1=404 AVAL1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:15 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    \\?\D:\SMSPKGSIG\P1000084.7 could not be located SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:15 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:15 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    The current user context will be used for connecting to ["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    No network connection is needed to ["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\ as this is the local machine. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    CreateSignatureShare, connecting to DP SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Signature share exists on distribution point path \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSSIG$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSSIG$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Share SMSPKGD$ exists on distribution point \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSPKGD$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSPKGD$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Creating, reading and or updating Operations Management server role registry keys for a Distribution Point ... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Set share security on share \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SCCMContentLib$ SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    RDC:Successfully created package signature file from \\?\D:\SMSPKGSIG\P1000084.7 to \\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSSIG$\P1000084.7.tar SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Setting permissions on file MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\SMSSIG$\P1000084.7.tar. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    STATMSG: ID=2303 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=1768 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:23:16.545 2013 ISTR0="P1000084" ISTR1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=2 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" AID1=404 AVAL1="["Display=\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\"]MSWNET:["SMS_SITE=S10"]\\MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com\" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Successfully created/updated the package server in the data source SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    Performing cleanup prior to returning. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 1768 (0x06E8)
    DP thread with array index 0 ended. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    DP thread with thread handle 0000000000001684 and thread ID 1768 ended. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:16 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Package P1000084 does not have a preferred sender. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    CDistributionSrcSQL::UpdateAvailableVersion PackageID=P1000084, Version=7, Status=2301 SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    StoredPkgVersion (7) of package P1000084. StoredPkgVersion in database is 7. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    SourceVersion (7) of package P1000084. SourceVersion in database is 7. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    STATMSG: ID=2301 SEV=I LEV=M SOURCE="SMS Server" COMP="SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER" SYS=MYSECONDARYSERVER.mydomain.com SITE=S10 PID=2056 TID=4584 GMTDATE=Tue Jan 29 15:23:17.342 2013 ISTR0="FBN_ConfigureOSD_R02" ISTR1="P1000084" ISTR2="" ISTR3="" ISTR4="" ISTR5="" ISTR6="" ISTR7="" ISTR8="" ISTR9="" NUMATTRS=1 AID0=400 AVAL0="P1000084" SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Exiting package processing thread. SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 4584 (0x11E8)
    Sleep 30 minutes... SMS_DISTRIBUTION_MANAGER 1/29/2013 9:23:17 AM 3320 (0x0CF8)

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:38 PM
  • Sorry forgot to add that if I look at the content status node the "Success" tab shows "Distribution Manager successfully distributed package "X" to the Primary DP.
    The "In Progress" tab shows:

    Status: 
    Waiting for content

    Asset Details:
    Device: MYSECONDARYSERVER
    Description: Distribution Manager successfully process package "X"

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:42 PM
  • Bit more info..as stated the package works fine from the secondary and just in case anyone was wondering, the SCCMContentLib does contain all 3 sets of data in each respective sub directory, the package files do also exists in SMSPKGSIG and the .TAR file exists in SMSSIG$.
    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:02 PM
  • I've seen this issue as well. I've reported it and I know there was a bug filed by someone else on it as well. My content status sometimes says failed on a DP and the package works just fine. Troubleshooting is much harder in the single instance store than it was in the style DP shares. I spent the better part of 6 weeks fighting content replication issues when I first installed. I found two things that ultimatley got my site into a usable state. 1.) The network guys had accidently throtteled my server bandwidth to a crawl 2.) I've been using priorities and sender time slots for years in 2007 with secondary sites. I tried doing that with plain DP's in 2012. When I disabled all of that things cleared up a lot.

    Sorry... I know I didn't help you but my point is you are not alone. Check out on connect.microsoft.com and see if you can find a bug filed by Greg Ramsey about this. If not file one and post a link to it here.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:01 AM
  • Thanks John.  Yeah, we aren't using any throttling yet but will in the future.  Glad to know its not just me.  I'll dig around on connect and see if anyone has indeed posted this issue.  And I agree 100% that the new single instance store is certainly a different troubleshooting experience!  if I come up with anything I'll post back.

    Thanks again!

    Monday, February 4, 2013 3:51 PM
  • Just checked connect but wasn't able to locate an existing submission for this issue so I created one here:

    https://connect.microsoft.com/ConfigurationManagervnext/feedback/details/778504/content-status-not-reflecting-actual-status

    Fingers crossed as it seems its getting worse.  Everything still working but its going to get ugly real quick if I cant determine without digging through logs what my content status truly is.

    Monday, February 4, 2013 10:27 PM
  • Having the exact same problem as described above. No throttling. Logs reflect that it was successful, all content is in the place but still sitting there as "in progress". Having and issue custom boot images as well as a SCEP 2012 definition update package for daily updates.

    If you manually delete the packages and re-distribute to secondary sites all seems well for a while... then it breaks again. Will report if I find anything helpful about this situation.

    Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:26 PM
  • Yep, have it on the SCEP Definition package, 2 Applications and 3 packages so far.  And yes, recreating the package works for a bit but eventually breaks again.

    I just opened a support case with Microsoft on this as well.  Judging however on the response I have been getting on my other case I opened last week for another issue I dont expect any resolution for awhile.  Took a week almost to get the guy to respond to me just to tell me he has no ETA and no information and needs more time.  :-/  This is my first experience with SA benefit support.  We have always had Premier in the past which was excellent and responsive.   :-( 

    I am ready to roll into production but have 3 outstanding issue that are preventing me from doing so.  Wishful thinking has me hoping that they are working on hotfixes and thats why I haven't recevied any help yet!

    Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:58 PM
  • We also have a PSS case open for this. So far it appears that distribution manager is doing everything correctly, but the status messaging is not correctly processed/replicated by the secondary sites. We added the issue in Connect, but that program closed on the 31/01/13. Once we have a solution I'll add it here.

    The other issue we have is where the content lib becomes out of sync with WMI, which leads to a warning state for a DP after content validation. Previously, the smsdpmon.log would tell you what package is missing, but now it doesn't. So you have to manually check the contents of the PkgLib folder against WMI. Fun. It would be nice to have a way of rebuilding WMI to match what actually exists in the lib.

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:08 AM
  • Also have the same issue; oddly though it only seems to affect content created pre-SP1 deployment including my SCEP ADR deployment package. Even just updating content on a deployment type can trigger the status issue. Any new applictaions I create seem to be fine when modified/updated.

    I've ao opened up a MS support case - spent 3 hours working with an engineer yesterday and we're no nearer to having this resolved yet. Will update if I get anywhere today.


    MCTS 70-640 | MCTS 70-642 | Prince2 Practitioner| ITIL Foundation v3 | http://www.cb-net.co.uk

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:11 AM
  • Another thing we also noted was after the SP1 upgrade, the 'Last Status Date' for each DP in the DP Config Status Node is disjoint from the last status message received from that DP. Were previously it matched the timestamp of the most recent message. Now it seems only to update after a DP configuration message, ie 'PXE Setting Changed'.

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:27 AM
  • I voted up your bug report on connect. Others seeing this issue should do the same. The more votes the more attention the issue will get from the product team.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:50 PM
  • Thanks John!
    Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:15 PM
  • So over the weekend I removed the DP role from one of my affected site servers, then once I was sure it had been uninstalled I re-added the DP role. Initial tests look good... bit of a sledge-hammer approach, but in reality it didn't take that long.

    Will keep you posted...


    MCTS 70-640 | MCTS 70-642 | Prince2 Practitioner| ITIL Foundation v3 | http://www.cb-net.co.uk

    Monday, February 18, 2013 9:38 AM
  • I should have added this to my earlier post, but we have tried the following without result:

    1. Remove DP role, then reinstall, and redistribute: This works initially, and the first distribution of packages will be successful. However after a day or so, your pre-SP1 packages that are updated will fall into the 'Waiting for content' status.

    2. Remove Secondary Site: Same as above.

    3. Create new package: This has worked consistently for us, though we have only done it for testing. We have hundreds of packages and many that are from a ConfigMgr 2007 site, and we still have 1000's of clients to migrate, so re-creating all the packages would create a massive headache with execution history.

    So far with our PSS case, we have found that the is a problem with the way the status messages are being processed, and that because of that, the console reports incorrectly.

    If you look at the component status messages and logs, the content distribution is working as normal.


    • Edited by JT_DPS Monday, February 18, 2013 1:14 PM
    Monday, February 18, 2013 1:13 PM
  • JT_DPS, exact same here.  Worked with MS Support most of the day last Friday on this and as you stated the status messages are not being processed correctly to properly reflect the status in the console.  Still no fix yet.  Hoping to get back at it today.
    Monday, February 18, 2013 3:30 PM
  • Just heard back from the MS Support guy.  He stated that other folks have been submitting tickets for the same issue and it appears its officially been reported as a bug to the product team.  So we wait...hopefully for a hotfix soon. ;-)
    Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:04 PM
  • We got a fix today, but its not a 'hotfix' fix. Essentially it looks to be a DB issue, which can be remediated by a SQL query against the primary site DB. We have run it in our dev and test environments, and it looks good, but we are leaving it for a few days before running against prod.

    Friday, February 22, 2013 7:58 AM
  • Thats great news JT_DPS!  Fingers crossed that I will hear back then from our support guys soon.  Please post back in a few days if you would and let us know if everything is still working.

    Guessing this will likely be rolled into a hotfix.  Can't imagin ethey will add this to install notes as a post install SQL Query?  Either way, progress forward is great.  Lets hope the fix sticks!

    Friday, February 22, 2013 2:33 PM
  • Once we can confirm that it does indeed fix the issue, I'll post it. But as editing the DB manually is not supported, I don't want to post something that might have an adverse effect on anyone else's installation. Incidentally, the problem came back for us, so between this issue and endless problems with Content Validation and WMI mismatch, I'm just about ready to go back to 2007.

    Monday, February 25, 2013 12:29 AM
  • On second thought you are right, if the SQL you recieved from CSS works that will be entered into their system as a known issues. Anyone who sees the problem can call and get that fix for free. It would be a bad idea to post the SQL here in the forums.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, February 25, 2013 3:04 AM
  • Well that sucks the problem came back.  :-/  I feel your pain.  I have two outstanding issues (this being one of them) that is preventing me from moving forward with the migration from 2007.  I am poised and ready to go if we can ever get past them.  Well thank for the posts anyway.  I am still waiting to hear back with anything on my case.  I'll keep the thread updated when i get any info.

    BTW - I agree with John about not posting SQL in the forums.  Protect people fom themselves right?  ;-)

    Monday, February 25, 2013 2:36 PM
  • I should have added this to my earlier post, but we have tried the following without result:

    1. Remove DP role, then reinstall, and redistribute: This works initially, and the first distribution of packages will be successful. However after a day or so, your pre-SP1 packages that are updated will fall into the 'Waiting for content' status.

    2. Remove Secondary Site: Same as above.

    3. Create new package: This has worked consistently for us, though we have only done it for testing. We have hundreds of packages and many that are from a ConfigMgr 2007 site, and we still have 1000's of clients to migrate, so re-creating all the packages would create a massive headache with execution history.

    So far with our PSS case, we have found that the is a problem with the way the status messages are being processed, and that because of that, the console reports incorrectly.

    If you look at the component status messages and logs, the content distribution is working as normal.



    So it's taken a while but the issue has returned as you suggested it would. Will hold out for a proper fix :(

    MCTS 70-640 | MCTS 70-642 | Prince2 Practitioner| ITIL Foundation v3 | http://www.cb-net.co.uk

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:45 AM
  • Just a quick update,

    What we have seen (working with MS Support) is that an entry for each "In progress" package on each DP gets added to the table "DistributionContentVersion".  Deleting the entry from this table shows the status correctly from the console. (highly recommend not doing this unless instructed by your Support Engineer)

    This is however not a fix as subsequent DP updates cause the entry to get put back in this table thus showing "In progress" again in the console.

    No word yet on if the entry should be added to this table by SCCM or is its supposed to add it and then remove once complete, or whatever unknown issue is causing this behavior.  Just wanted to update the thread with a bit more info..


    Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:52 PM
  • Exactly what we found. In our case everything works correctly until content validation runs on the DP which repopulates the table with entries from the secondary sites. While we wait for MS to debug, we run the delete query for all secondary sites the day after content validation runs. Not a pretty solution, but at least it helps us see a more accurate status.

    From the digging around I have done, it looks like the processing of the 2301 status message from the DP fails to update the version number in the DistributionContentVersion table, leading to a version mismatch.

    Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:20 PM
  • I am experiencing the very same problem in our pilot environment and I noticed that removing the content from a DP and immediately re-adding it, makes the console to show the success stauts for the package.

    While this is not a fix, because every package update revert it into the bugged status, it is a fast workaround and supported operation as you do not edit manually the DB.

    Monday, March 11, 2013 8:20 AM
  • Yeah, that does work SimoneP however for us not a good solution due to bandwidth contraints to our remote DP's.  :-/
    Monday, March 11, 2013 3:57 PM
  • We got through another private hotfix from MS late last week. It involved changing two views in the DB. It seems to have resolved the issue, and doesn't get messed up by content validation. It seems a fairly simple fix, so should make it into CU1.
    Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:11 AM
  • That's excellent news JT_DPS.  Thanks for the update.
    Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:52 AM
  • Don't get your hopes up about CU1. I'd appreciate it if anyone that has a case open on this would send me the case number. If you aren't comfortable posting it here send it to me offline. My email address is my first name and last name without any other characters at gmail dot com.

    Thanks


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:41 PM
  • My case number is 113020510193458.  Thanks!
    Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:15 PM
  • Does we just need to call Microsoft with the case number to get the hotfix?
    Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:27 PM
  • Does we just need to call Microsoft with the case number to get the hotfix?

    NO.... there is not a publicly available  hotfix yet. You can call MS and tell them you are seeing the same problem as someone else. The more calls that they get the more likely there will be a publicly available HF.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:07 PM
  • I just got confirmation that this is a known issue and there will NOT be a fix in CU1. All I can say is keep calling support and complaining. This is a bug, it should be a free call. If enough people complain they may release a hotfix but that's unlikely since MS has said all hotfixes will come in CU's only.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:11 PM
  • I guess we'll end up with a work-around obtainable via CCS (until someone blogs it), at least until the fix pops up in CU2.

    Rob Marshall | UK | My Blog | WMUG | File CM12 Feedback | CM12 Docs | CM12 Release Notes

    Friday, March 15, 2013 12:03 PM
  • It must have been too late for CU1. Interestingly, we logged the call in January. It did take a while to find the workaround though. For info, the two views that need to be replaced are: v_ContentDistributionVersions and v_ContentDistributionReport_G. The private hotfix is just a couple .sql that creates them.  I’m still not overly impressed by SCCM2012s distribution. We have relatively fast WAN links and a 9hr window, and I still come to work in the morning to find packages in failed or retry. We may end up switching all our DPs over to pull.
    Friday, March 15, 2013 1:16 PM
  • Interesting.. I got the following email from the Connect report I submitted on this issue:

    The following feedback item you submitted at Microsoft Connect has been updated:

    Product/Technology - Configuration Manager
    Feedback ID – 778504
    Feedback Title – Content Status not reflecting actual status

    The following fields or values changed:

    Field Status changed from [Active] to [Closed]

    Field Resolution changed from [None] to [Fixed]

    To view these changes, click the following link, or paste the link into your web browser:

    http://connect.microsoft.com/ConfigurationManagervnext/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=778504 (requires sign-in)

    Thanks for using Microsoft Connect!

    Regards, The Microsoft Connect Team.

    Friday, March 15, 2013 1:34 PM
  • It must have been too late for CU1. Interestingly, we logged the call in January. It did take a while to find the workaround though. For info, the two views that need to be replaced are: v_ContentDistributionVersions and v_ContentDistributionReport_G. The private hotfix is just a couple .sql that creates them.  I’m still not overly impressed by SCCM2012s distribution. We have relatively fast WAN links and a 9hr window, and I still come to work in the morning to find packages in failed or retry. We may end up switching all our DPs over to pull.

    I tried using time restriction on content transfers to remote DP's in CM12 RTM and had all kinds of problems. I removed the time constriants and things worked much better. It seems like it doesn't deal well with queueing up files using pkgxfer manager.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, March 15, 2013 2:00 PM
  • Interesting.. I got the following email from the Connect report I submitted on this issue:

    The following feedback item you submitted at Microsoft Connect has been updated:

    Product/Technology - Configuration Manager
    Feedback ID – 778504
    Feedback Title – Content Status not reflecting actual status

    The following fields or values changed:

    Field Status changed from [Active] to [Closed]

    Field Resolution changed from [None] to [Fixed]

    To view these changes, click the following link, or paste the link into your web browser:

    http://connect.microsoft.com/ConfigurationManagervnext/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=778504 (requires sign-in)

    Thanks for using Microsoft Connect!

    Regards, The Microsoft Connect Team.


    You should have gotten an email with contact info when you submitted the bug. You would be able to reply to them and ask what the fix is.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, March 15, 2013 2:00 PM
  • I sent it over to my MS Support engineer.  Hopefully something good will come out of this.  (Cant find the original email from when I submitted it.  :-/ )
    Friday, March 15, 2013 2:08 PM
  • I sent it over to my MS Support engineer.  Hopefully something good will come out of this.  (Cant find the original email from when I submitted it.  :-/ )

    You may be able to see the contact info on connect if you are the owner of that bug submission. I sent something off to a contact I have asking for an explanation too.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, March 15, 2013 3:07 PM
  • Thanks John.  I can't seem to locate any contact information.  If you hear back please update this thread.  I'll do the same if I hear from my MS Support engineer.
    Friday, March 15, 2013 3:33 PM
  • Do I have your email address?

    Anyway. It was closed as a duplicate bug report. The bug is actively being addressed too.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, March 15, 2013 7:37 PM
  • I just emailed you at your gmail account so you now have my email address.  ;-)  Glad to hear they are actively addressing this issue!
    Friday, March 15, 2013 7:44 PM
  • I am seeing this very same pattern on a W2k12 secondary site running ConfigMgr 2012 SP1.  It does not occur on a remote DP of the primary site, but about every other day the Endpoint Protection package (which gets updated daily) will get into this state. 

    No errors in the log files, but it appears to be indefinitely "In progress" on the secondary site DP.  The only way to clear the message is to remove the package from the secondary site's DP, and add it back.  It works for a day or 2, but fails again.  I removed and re-added the package yesterday, and it updates look good today.  Based on the pattern I've seen, I expect it to fail tonight. 

    Another quirk that might be making the problem worse in this environment, we are running W2k12 and WSUS 4.0.  Approximately 1 hour after the SUP syncronization, the wsyncmgr.log shows a number of deletions of expired updates, and it triggers an update of the Endpoint Protection Definitions package.  So the package gets updated twice daily, and before finding this forum thread I wasn't sure whether this extra update was causing the problem or not. 

    Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:09 PM
  • Another quirk that might be making the problem worse in this environment, we are running W2k12 and WSUS 4.0.  Approximately 1 hour after the SUP syncronization, the wsyncmgr.log shows a number of deletions of expired updates, and it triggers an update of the Endpoint Protection Definitions package.  So the package gets updated twice daily, and before finding this forum thread I wasn't sure whether this extra update was causing the problem or not. 

    This is a new update cleanup feature in SP1 I believe and not related to Windows Server 2012 or WSUS.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:14 PM
  • Just got confirmation from my support engineer that the product team will be releasing a fix "soon".

    "I have checked with the Product team and they will be releasing a fix soon. Though they have not configured a date yet but will be soon."

    Great news.  Now we wait.  ;-)

    Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:21 PM
  • Just a quick update..

    I was told by the support engineer at MS that this fix would be included in CU1 that was just released (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2817245/en-us).  There is no mention of this issue being fixed in the article which concerns me, however I am going to install this update in our lab and see if it does actually fix the issue.  I'll report back my findings.  if anyone else has already taken this plunge would love to hear your experience../

    Monday, March 25, 2013 2:23 PM
  • I can assure you that fix is not in CU1. I was told that on good authority prior to CU1 releasing. I think I mentioned that above.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, March 25, 2013 2:57 PM
  • Well that sucks.  :-/  Here the quote from the email I received.  Guess I should have stated my contact said "expected" to be in CU.  Anyone know the KB Article number for the hotfix?

    In relation to the “Content Status Issue”:

    • The TAM confirmed what you had said, this is a known bug
    • Premier customers have access to request this hotfix
    • It is expected that this hotfix will be rolled into a SCCM 2012 SP1 cumulative update
    Monday, March 25, 2013 3:21 PM
  • I'm asking for clarification. last I heard there was not a fix that can be requested. Hang tight, I'll get back to you.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, March 25, 2013 5:43 PM
  • Thank you sir.
    Monday, March 25, 2013 5:58 PM
  • I can confirm for you MS is aware that this is a problem. There is currently no fix available.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:12 PM
  • Your crushing my hopes and dreams John.  :P  Thank for the update. 
    Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:32 PM
  • I have an unconfirmed report that this fix will be included in SCCM 2012 SP1 CU2.  :-/
    Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:54 PM
  • I opened a case with Microsoft and they said there isn't a fix available for this problem...
    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 7:15 PM
  • I opened a case with Microsoft and they said there isn't a fix available for this problem...

    That is correct, it's a known issue with no available fix.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:19 PM
  • Oh, I thought there was a hotfix.
    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:44 AM
  • There is a private hotfix which may be available if you have a Premier Support Agreement.
    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:48 AM
  • Ah, gotcha.
    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:06 AM
  • There is a private hotfix which may be available if you have a Premier Support Agreement.

    This is not the word I was given directly from the product team.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:40 AM
  • We have it (the private hotfix) in place in our production environment. It might be to early for it to be released more generally, or we might be a test site for it, and they are waiting for our feedback.
    Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:14 AM
  • Yeah, I was told the same thing.  Hopefully they release it for the rest of us soon.
    Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:21 PM
  • Can you detail the changes made by the private hootfix?

    I'm looking for some sort of fix/workaround to help with our site.

    Thanks

    Monday, April 15, 2013 2:04 PM
  • I'm looking for some sort of fix/workaround to help with our site.

    It basically changes two SQL views, but it's not available to the publix yet (KB2828900).

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Monday, April 15, 2013 2:08 PM
  • Thanks for the info.

    Tried searching KB2828900 but not able to find anything, is it the correct KB number?

    Monday, April 15, 2013 2:17 PM
  •   but it's not available to the public yet (KB2828900)



    Yes, that's the correct one ...

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de


    Monday, April 15, 2013 2:27 PM
  • New HOTFIX available: The content status of a package is stuck at "In progress - Waiting for Content" in ConfigMgr 2012 SP1

    http://blogs.technet.com/b/configurationmgr/archive/2013/04/18/new-hotfix-available-the-content-status-of-a-package-is-stuck-at-quot-in-progress-waiting-for-content-quot-in-configmgr-2012-sp1.aspx


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    • Proposed as answer by JT_DPS Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:05 AM
    • Marked as answer by William Bracken Friday, April 26, 2013 2:55 PM
    Friday, April 19, 2013 12:00 AM
  • New HOTFIX available: The content status of a package is stuck at "In progress - Waiting for Content" in ConfigMgr 2012 SP1

    http://blogs.technet.com/b/configurationmgr/archive/2013/04/18/new-hotfix-available-the-content-status-of-a-package-is-stuck-at-quot-in-progress-waiting-for-content-quot-in-configmgr-2012-sp1.aspx


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Different problem though.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, April 19, 2013 3:23 PM
  • John, this sounds to me like the exact problem we are having?  Why do you say a different problem?  just want to get all perspectives before we install the hotfix..
    Friday, April 19, 2013 3:29 PM
  • Maybe I read the description wrong. To me that message "In progress - Waiting for Content" sounds like what I'd see in CAS.log on a client if the client can't locate content.

    That patch is only applicable to SP1 CU1 as well.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/


    Friday, April 19, 2013 3:48 PM
  • Thanks for the heads up, saves me having to make the call to MS to get the hotfix.

    I downloaded the hotfix for our SP1 CU1 server and looks to have done the trick, so good so far, status starting to show at 100% again.

    Friday, April 19, 2013 3:54 PM
  • Good news.  thanks for the update rossoco.  We are not yet in CU1 as I have 2 open issues with MS (this being one of them) and didn't want to muddy the waters until those were fixed.  I sent an email to both MS techs I was working with on both issues asking if I should proceed with CU1 and then this hotfix to solve the one issue while the other team was still working on the other.  Sadly I have not heard back from either of them.  Maybe even more sadly is that this hotfix is now a public release and yet I still have not heard back from the tech working this issue with MS Support.  :-/
    Friday, April 19, 2013 7:12 PM
  • The fix itself isn't doesn't require CU1, its just that it was packaged as a hotfix after CU1. So the wrapper respects the hotfix ordering. KB2828900 is the fix for this problem. The KB has the same wording as my PSS case.
    Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:05 AM
  • The fix itself isn't doesn't require CU1, its just that it was packaged as a hotfix after CU1. So the wrapper respects the hotfix ordering. KB2828900 is the fix for this problem. The KB has the same wording as my PSS case.

    I tried to install it without CU1 and it won't install.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, April 22, 2013 1:21 PM
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. The fix, as in the two new SQL views created by the update.sql file inside the hotfix, don't require CU1. The installation package that runs the query was created after CU1, so its installer will check for CU1.

    I only mentioned it because William has outstanding issues, which he didn't want to re-troubleshoot after CU1. We tested against pre and post CU1, so he only needs to worry about the other issue if he decides to use CU1.

    Monday, April 22, 2013 1:38 PM
  • How did you get update.sql extracted? I found it mentioned in the msi log "Property(C): UPDATESQLPATH = hotfix\KB2828900\update.sql" but I can't find where it's extracted to so that I can run it outside of the hotfix. I don't have CU1 installed but I'd like to install this hofix.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, April 22, 2013 3:01 PM
  • Thanks guys.  I am actually going to install CU1 and then the hotfix today (per my support techs suggestion).  Hopefully I wil be able to put this issue to rest soon!
    Monday, April 22, 2013 3:17 PM
  • I don't have CU1 installed but I'd like to install this hofix.



    I don't recommend doing this. Install CU1 for SP1 first. Otherwise you're going to edit the database "manually" which is not the best idea ;-)

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Monday, April 22, 2013 3:24 PM
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. The fix, as in the two new SQL views created by the update.sql file inside the hotfix, don't require CU1. The installation package that runs the query was created after CU1, so its installer will check for CU1.

    I only mentioned it because William has outstanding issues, which he didn't want to re-troubleshoot after CU1. We tested against pre and post CU1, so he only needs to worry about the other issue if he decides to use CU1.


    What are the two new views called?

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Monday, April 22, 2013 3:48 PM
  • No new views. v_ContentDistributionReport_G and v_ContentDistributionVersions are *modified*.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Monday, April 22, 2013 3:56 PM
  • I have installed CU1 and then the hotfix and early signs are that the issue has been corrected.  Going to give it a few more days just to make it stays fixed.  ;-)
    Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:19 PM
  • I am having this same issue. Can anyone confirm that the fix posted above works?
    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:41 PM
  • Yes, it helped.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:42 AM
  • Yeah, the problem has been resolved on my end after this hotfix.  :-)
    Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:58 PM
  • Great, thanks!
    One more question. I had turned content validation off on my DPs because of this problem. Do you think it's safe to turn it back on now?

    FYI - my content status reflects correctly now.

    • Edited by cityskate Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:40 PM
    Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:09 PM
  • Yes, we left ours turned on prior to and post patch without issues. ;-)
    Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:01 PM
  • How do you verify that the patch was correctly installed?

    If I update my primary site and then decide I need to new secondary created, do I need to install the patch on the secondary or does it automatically get installed during setup?

    Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:24 PM
  • During the install you will be prompted to create a package for console, server and clients.  In our infrastructure the server update is deployed to a collection that is query based to pull in all SCCM servers.  Once a new SCCM server is installed, the CU comes down shortly after the client is installed so any future servers we deploy will get the update automatically.
    Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:50 PM
  • hi guys, i have this exact same problem. Concerned though that I am runnin SCCM 2012 SP1 with CU2.

    my Endpoint package after updating each day goes into in progress including random application after the content validation takes place.

    is it advisable to install the above hotfix on cu2?

    Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:13 PM
  • I think that this hotfix won't install on CU2. It might also be part of CU2. CU3 is also available. Just examine the kb articles to see if it's part of any CU.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:28 PM
  • Hi Torsten,

    This issue still happens after installing CU3 on one of my DP

    Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:43 AM