Mailing List ArchivesPublic Access |
![[Computer Systems Lab]](https://www-auth.cs.wisc.edu/pics/csl_logo.gif){kind=logo}
|
Mailing List ArchivesPublic Access |
|
|
All, I have been having issues with
installing the new 7.2.3 version; well in fact there have been a few problems
with updating to newer versions on my own XP pc. It appears that Sophos really does
not like certain files, and after installation, most of the executables in
condor/bin folder would just disappear. In fact this has just happened again,
leaving two files – condor_c-gahp.exe wghich I have authorised in Sophos as
not being suspicious. Allegedly is suffers from Sus/Behav-115 error as being a
suspect file. Each time I allow a file as authorised, so my only way around
this is to turn off Sophos for a moment. As soon as I restart the Sophos virus checker, it puts nearly
all the condor executables into the naughty bin. This is not a general issue
around our Labs builds. Best Kevan From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg.Hitchen@xxxxxxxx Hi
All Just
a few observations we have made over the last few days that maybe some
of the condor team could comment on. We
have recently upgraded our windows execute nodes from 7.0.5 toco 7.2.3.
We install from the Central Managers (linux with samba) using the zip file download
and DOS batch scripts. i.e. copy condor files to execute node, install
the condor service, make a few registry entries, and start condor. We
also install a scheduled task that runs every day to check the file server
for updated binaries and/or config files. Am
I right in thinking that the 7.2.* series is the first using VS2008 and therefore
needs the VC90 type manifest file? Anyway
back to what we found. On some PCs our install would run OK but
the "net start condor" would fail with errors in the System Event Log referring
to a syntax error on line 4 of the Microsoft.VC90.CRT.manifest file.
If we tried an install from the MSI download then no errors and condor would
run. We
tracked down the failures to machines that did NOT have Microsoft
.NET Framework 3.0 or above installed (i.e. they had 2.0 or less).
This corresponded to whether or not the PCs had a folder in the C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS
directory of the form x86_Microsoft.VC90.CRT_********* Using
the MSI condor install on a PC without .NET 3.0 would also create such
a folder (and remove it when uninstalling condor). This could also be
seen in the internal structure of the MSI file when using the /a administrative install
option to just extract files and not install condor. Included in the MSI
file is a windows\system32 and windows\winsxs structure. Googling
and reading some info about these "side-by-side" manifest files
it seemed like the manifest could either be in the .exe itself or as an
external .manifest file (which seems how it was intended with the condor
zip file). Using a hex editor on the condor exes showed just a generic
reference to a manifest, and nothing specific about the VC files msvcm90.dll,
msvcp90.dll, msvcr90.dll. It seemed like the external manifest
file in the condor bin folder "should" make things work OK, along
with the 3 dlls mentioned in there as well. It seems like it doesn't. It's
like the condor exe's are only looking for system installs of the manifest and
NOT looking in the same folder as the exe's? If
we installed the latest .NET 3.5 then a WinSxS folder with VC90.CRT would
be created and our batch install would work and start condor OK. In
fact we could delete the .manifest and 3 dlls mentioned in the condor\bin
directory and condor would still work OK. Fortunately
less than 10% of PCs in our organisation currently don't have
.NET 3.0 or better installed so it's not a show stopper, but we are
still interested in comments/suggestions/explanations. It
would seem that using the zip file install method will NOT allow condor
to run unless the latest .NET update is installed (or another application
install has installed .NET or the appropriate folder containing the
necessary dlls in the WinSxS directory. If
you've read this far, thanks! :) Even
better if you can shed some light on this! :) Cheers Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |