Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
WOW!! What an excellent and comprehensive reply.
Based on what may become involved in the progression of the tests, I think I will want to capture a backup image of the workstation exactly as it is now, before proceeding. That way, we can always come back to a known point (if something “worse” happens along the way [grin]). I’m in the middle of a priority project for another client for the next few days – I may not get a chance to capture the backup and run through these suggestions until the coming weekend.
I just wanted to let you know, so that if/when you don’t see any further activity in this thread for a few days, you don’t misinterpret it as disinterest … or that I have abandoned the thread (as forum posters do, way too often – although, perhaps less so here at GetFaxing).
Just a couple of FYI’s, though, that I can give you before I even run through the steps …
I haven’t tried printing just 2 items (that’s not a bad thought); the lowest number I happened to try was 4. Having said that, I did try several different batches/items … including items which have previously printed out just fine in batches. So, it could end up being bad entries or log corruption – but at a high level, the bookies would probably give long-ish odds on that one [grin].
The total number of entries in the Send Log is <3000 (well away from the ~10000 limit), so fortunately, I don't think we have to worry about that one.
It never hurts to try things, especially when chasing down unusual problems … so I will definitely follow through on all of the items/steps that you have suggested. Regardless of successes or failures, I’ll post the results back here as soon as I have them.
Cheers!
Brant
Unfortunately, the only thing it points to is FAXMNG32.EXE. The exact wording of the message is as follows: “FAXMNG32.EXE has generated error and will be closed by Windows. You will need to restart the program”. It also indicates that an error log is being created.
In the event logs, there is a corresponding Dr. Watson event with the following details (I’ve snipped it part way down, because it started to reveal more information than I was comfortable with at this point [smile]. If you need the extra details, perhaps I could provide them to you via PM or email – something a little less “public”?)
Event Type: Information
Event Source: DrWatson
Event Category: None
Event ID: 4097
Date: 10/17/2009
Time: 3:28:16 PM
User: N/A
Computer: STATION62
Description:
The application, V:faxmng32.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 10/17/2009 @ 15:28:16.865 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 78010AEA (memcpy)
Data:
0000: 0d 0a 0d 0a 41 70 70 6c ….Appl
0008: 69 63 61 74 69 6f 6e 20 ication
0010: 65 78 63 65 70 74 69 6f exceptio
0018: 6e 20 6f 63 63 75 72 72 n occurr
0020: 65 64 3a 0d 0a 20 20 20 ed:..
0028: 20 20 20 20 20 41 70 70 App
0030: 3a 20 56 3a 5c 66 61 78 : V:fax
0038: 6d 6e 67 33 32 2e 65 78 mng32.ex
0040: 65 20 28 70 69 64 3d 31 e (pid=1
0048: 30 36 38 29 0d 0a 20 20 068)..
0050: 20 20 20 20 20 20 57 68 Wh
0058: 65 6e 3a 20 31 30 2f 31 en: 10/1
0060: 37 2f 32 30 30 39 20 40 7/2009 @
0068: 20 31 35 3a 32 38 3a 31 15:28:1
0070: 36 2e 38 36 35 0d 0a 20 6.865..
0078: 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 45 E
0080: 78 63 65 70 74 69 6f 6e xception
0088: 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 3a number:
0090: 20 63 30 30 30 30 30 30 c000000
0098: 35 20 28 61 63 63 65 73 5 (acces
00a0: 73 20 76 69 6f 6c 61 74 s violat
00a8: 69 6f 6e 29 0d 0a 0d 0a ion)….
00b0: 2a 2d 2d 2d 2d 3e 20 53 *—-> S
00b8: 79 73 74 65 6d 20 49 6e ystem In
00c0: 66 6f 72 6d 61 74 69 6f formatio
00c8: 6e 20 3c 2d 2d 2d 2d 2a n <—-*
00d0: 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 20 20 ..
00d8: 20 20 43 6f 6d 70 75 74 Comput
00e0: 65 72 20 4e 61 6d 65 3a er Name:
00e8: 20 53 54 41 54 49 4f 4e STATION
00f0: 36 32 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 62..
00f8: 20 20 20 20 55 73 65 72 User
0100: 20 4e 61 6d 65 3a 20 62 Name: b
0108: 72 65 6e 64 61 74 0d 0a rendat..
0110: 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0118: 4e 75 6d 62 65 72 20 6f Number o
0120: 66 20 50 72 6f 63 65 73 f Proces
0128: 73 6f 72 73 3a 20 31 0d sors: 1.
0130: 0a 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 .
0138: 20 50 72 6f 63 65 73 73 Process
0140: 6f 72 20 54 79 70 65 3a or Type:
0148: 20 78 38 36 20 46 61 6d x86 Fam
0150: 69 6c 79 20 36 20 4d 6f ily 6 Mo
0158: 64 65 6c 20 36 20 53 74 del 6 St
0160: 65 70 70 69 6e 67 20 32 epping 2
0168: 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 20 20 ..
0170: 20 20 57 69 6e 64 6f 77 Window
0178: 73 20 32 30 30 30 20 56 s 2000 V
0180: 65 72 73 69 6f 6e 3a 20 ersion:
0188: 35 2e 30 0d 0a 20 20 20 5.0..
0190: 20 20 20 20 20 43 75 72 Cur
0198: 72 65 6e 74 20 42 75 69 rent Bui
01a0: 6c 64 3a 20 32 31 39 35 ld: 2195
01a8: 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 20 20 ..
01b0: 20 20 53 65 72 76 69 63 Servic
01b8: 65 20 50 61 63 6b 3a 20 e Pack:
01c0: 34 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 20 4..
01c8: 20 20 20 43 75 72 72 65 Curre
01d0: 6e 74 20 54 79 70 65 3a nt Type:
01d8: 20 55 6e 69 70 72 6f 63 Uniproc
01e0: 65 73 73 6f 72 20 46 72 essor Fr
01e8: 65 65 0d 0a 20 20 20 20 ee..One thing I can tell you – the error code itself and the memory location appear to be very consistent – the only thing that seems to change from one even to the next, is the time stamp.
I hope that provides you with a bit more insight.
Brant
I was in over the weekend, to do some more work on this. I did manage to get things working, before I got your reply.
What I ended up doing, was taking a shotgun approach (not my usual style – but, I was really starting to get a bit of pressure to get this resolved). I ended up ticking all of the permissions for the Anonymous Logon (in the COM and DCOM areas), and I also added Athenticated Users – with all permissions ticked. Then, everything worked without a hitch. My hunch is that the Authenticated Users entry made the difference … and if I ever get enough time to go back and do some isolation testing, I will surely check it out (and post back here).
I did notice (before making the above adjustments) that the nature of the misbehaviour seems to depend on exactly how the client was started. If the controller started while in an Admin account, and I subsequently tried to fax from a non-Admin account, I would get one error message (account related). Otherwise, if I rebooted the client system and went directly to a non-Admin account to start up the controller, and tried to fax from that non-Admin account, then I would get a different error message (RPC related).
We don’t have any COM, DCOM, or RPC related policies set on our Win2000 PDC. At least, none that are overtly set – perhaps, there is one with a side-effect. Having said that though, given what finally worked for me, it seems unlikely to be a policy issue.
Thanks for the tip about the Host Configuration issue – that’s a really good thing to know, before it actually happens to me. 😀
Cheers!
Brant
Hi,
Yes, there is a desktop firewall (Outpost Pro) on the Win2000 clients – but, there is already a suitable rule in place from the previous set-up. When we replaced the host system, we made sure that the IP address (and even the machine name) was identical to what the old one was. (We first removed the old machine from the domain’s Active Directory, to make sure that there were no problems introducing the new unit [smile].)
Thanks for the tips regarding looking for DCOM errors. When no red flags turned up, I started to really scratch my head. Then, it struck me that there was another test I could perform. I tried faxing (from a client) using an Admin account – and it worked! Ah ha – now I knew I had a security/permissions problem.
I went back and reviewed everything – again. It seems that, for some reason, step 4.8 of the Symantec KB article had not “stuck”. I know I did it, because I have a check-mark beside each of the sub-steps on my printout (and I’m careful about those things). But, alas, the “Remote Access” option was _not_ ticked for the ANONYMOUS LOGON within the Access Permissions on the COM Security tab on the host.
I changed that, and tried again (with a normal, non-Admin account) … and there are encouraging indications of progress, but I’m not out of the woods yet. ???
When trying to fax from a client (non-Admin), I now get the following message:
WinFax PRO is unable to connect to the WinFax PRO Host station called 10.1.2.2. Make sure an account has been created for you on the host station (using the same name/password used to login on your client station).
Hmmm. This environment is part of a domain – where there is a single/central server, which runs Active Directory, MS Exchange, etc. There are ~35 users in the domain – 5 of whom are set up with WinFax on their (Win2000) workstations. The WinFax Host is on a sort of “butler” box which is unattended; it is there specifically to provide the WinFax hosting service and a couple of other similar/centralized services. It is running XP SP2 – it is *not* a full server.
Given that the user accounts already exist in the domain, and that the WinFax Host system is already a member of the domain … I’m not sure how I would go about creating the users accounts on the system itself. Is it really necessary to create local machine accounts on the host which are essentially “duplicates” of the domain accounts? That doesn’t really “smell” right to me. Do the approprite domain user accounts perhaps need to be made members of the local machine Power Users group on the Host? It’s just a thought – and if that’s what it takes to resolve this issue, I would be willing to make that compromise. But, if you’ve run into this issue before, and there is a better or more appropriate solution, that would certainly be fine too.
Any (more) words of wisdom will (still) be greatly apprecaited! 🙂
Brant
