From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01C2C92D.D7646F30
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   You misunderstand the question George asked.  He was question whether =
you can trusted that an update has been applied just because it is =
reported as such.  Your problem supports that updates are being applied.

   As for your issue, the KB number appears to be invalid so I could =
read it.  In any case it's a great example of how the effectively =
infinite number of configurations in the real world makes such issues =
impossible to avoid by testing alone.  Even your own testing didn't find =
it.

Rich

  "John Cuccia"  wrote in message =
news:mqel3vc3bl6sgr3aoa9l813ch9vlp673ml{at}4ax.com...
  On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:33:38 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:

  >  I don't verify them all because I've never had a problem with the =
ones I have verified.

  Windows 2000 SP2 broke our SMS 2.0 SP3 hierarchy.  It tooks us, along
  with PSS, almost six months to realize that it was an OS problem and
  not an SMS issue.  In the meantime, we were forced to reboot our 35+
  SMS server three to four times a week to keep them running.  See
  Q31443.  MS claims it was a bug in W2K SP1, also, but it didn't affect
  us until we rolled out SP2.  Since we deployed service packs for SQL
  Server and SMS at the same time, we suspected those. It also affected
  our Exchange 2000 infrastructure.

  The problem didn't show up in our lab or test environments, I assume
  because of traffic and utilization levels.

------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01C2C92D.D7646F30
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You
misunderstand the =
question George=20
asked.  He was question whether you can trusted that an update has = been=20
applied just because it is reported as such.  Your problem
supports = that=20
updates are being applied.
 
   As for
your issue, the KB =
number=20
appears to be invalid so I could read it.  In any case it's a
great = example=20
of how the effectively infinite number of configurations in the real = world makes=20
such issues impossible to avoid by testing alone.  Even your=20
own testing didn't find it.
 
Rich
 

  "John Cuccia" <jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>">mailto:jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com">jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:mqel3vc3bl6=
sgr3aoa9l813ch9vlp673ml{at}4ax.com...On=20
  Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:33:38 -0800, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>  I=20
  don't verify them all because I've never had a problem with the ones I =
have=20
  verified.Windows 2000 SP2 broke our SMS 2.0 SP3 =
hierarchy.  It=20
  tooks us, alongwith PSS, almost six months to realize that it was =
an OS=20
  problem andnot an SMS issue.  In the meantime, we were forced =
to=20
  reboot our 35+SMS server three to four times a week to keep them=20
  running.  SeeQ31443.  MS claims it was a bug
in W2K SP1, =
also,=20
  but it didn't affectus until we rolled out SP2.  Since we =
deployed=20
  service packs for SQLServer and SMS at the same time, we suspected =
those.=20
  It also affectedour Exchange 2000
infrastructure.The =
problem=20
  didn't show up in our lab or test environments, I assumebecause of =
traffic=20
  and utilization levels.

------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01C2C92D.D7646F30--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4