Automatic udpates and F@H

[Earp]

I just noticed this today. There seems to be a conflict between F@H and Automatic Updates. I first noticed in on my WSUS Server (Windows Server Update Services) which basically hosts updates for Windows/Microsoft Update (It uses some of the same stuff as Automatic Updates). It was having problems downloading the updates ( it just wasn't ever downloading). As soon as I shut down the F@H service, the files came flying down. Then I noticed the same thing on my desktop, it was taking forever to get the updates, until I killed the F@H service.

I think this has something to do with BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service, which is used for these things) not downloading anything when the CPU is pegged. I cut my CPU back to 80%, but I won't know if that fixes it until the next round of MS updates.

Has anyone else seen these problems?

 

[marty9876]

Huh...interesting...must know more....way not cool if true.

I know mine without WUS/SUS, just running the normal auto updates take forever to get updates, but I've seen them from time to time getting updated... I think.

 

[DamienThorn]

I've had a problem, not with windows update, but with McAfee - when McAfee and F@H hit the net together, F@H successfully transfers its results to stanford, but McAfee just sits and perpetually tries to update, without ever being able to.

As a note, I realize that most people despise McAfee and/or Norton, but McAfee is free, and required on all computers on campus, so saying to dump the anti-virus just isn't an option.

 

[Grimmda]

Good point on BITS... Think about it, Microsoft Updates or (SUS) will only grab those updates when it thinks your PC's aren't doing anything. F@H is doing "Something" so those updates never come in. It's as if you were doing anything else locally cpu/internet intensive. I think the more "tailored back" the CPU use is then the more updates will download. (faster)

I'm suprised this hasn't been noticed before here. Granted I never thought of it.

There's always the option to "stop" the folding service once a week for one hour via "Scheduler". One hour isn't going to kill your production especially if you're in dire need of those auto updates (for servers and such)

 

[Mayhem33]

The 3 boxes I have at home seem to download the updates just fine.....I have noticed that the automatic update can run a few days behind a release.

 

[OSUguy98]

I just update manually... F@H runs all the time and I check for updates every week.... no problems at all


Keep on Folding!! For the [H]orde!!

 

[Mayhem33]

I just update manually... F@H runs all the time and I check for updates every week.... no problems at all


Keep on Folding!! For the [H]orde!!

I have automatic setup and double check it now and again by manual update.

 

[marty9876]

I just update manually... F@H runs all the time and I check for updates every week.... no problems at all


Keep on Folding!! For the [H]orde!!

Try that on 400 machines not part of a domain.

Actually, my notebook @ 100% CPU get's the updates so...????

 

[DamienThorn]

Try that on 400 machines not part of a domain.

Actually, my notebook @ 100% CPU get's the updates so...????

I can get windows to update without a problem, it's McAfee on my end that has all the problems. That said, I haven't tested the "new" release of McAfee that I got access to this week, so maybe that will resolve the problem.

 

[Kvothe]

The 3 boxes I have at home seem to download the updates just fine.....I have noticed that the automatic update can run a few days behind a release.

I've noticed the same. Now at work, we have McAfee 8, and use an EPO server, but I've never had problems with getting updates through that, or through their web-updates.

 

[DamienThorn]

I've noticed the same. Now at work, we have McAfee 8, and use an EPO server, but I've never had problems with getting updates through that, or through their web-updates.

Interesting. I've been talking with some of the other support staff about McAfee, and they've noticed that it has problems whenever windows update and it try to simutaneously check for updates. They haven't been able to determine if the problem continues with McAfee 8. Also, it's a sporatic problem in many cases - I have a few computers that never seem to lock up, but others that do. I'm completely stumped as to why.

Did you ever had a problem with the earlier versions of McAfee p[H]antom?

 

[Kvothe]

At least during my tenure, the only other version we used with 6 and 7, and 7 was the only one I actively folded with. At least during that time, I've never noticed any problems at all, other than our DNS servers for some reason forget that Stanford exists.

 

[fenton06]

I don't ahve any problems with Automatic Updates on, everything downloads normally

 

[SmokeRngs]

We've got McAfee 8.0i with Patch 1 on the systems here. Well, at least the newer P4's. I've seen two or three different versions of McAfee being run around here.

It has no problem with F@H running and F@H doesn't interfere with it. The main problem I have with McAfee is how much processer usage it takes up. Bringing up some db software takes at least two or three times longer than it should because McAfee is going nuts trying to scan everything. It also severely slows everything down when java is being loaded. It spikes the damn CPU every time it happens and is extremely annoying.

 

[Kvothe]

It has no problem with F@H running and F@H doesn't interfere with it. The main problem I have with McAfee is how much processer usage it takes up. Bringing up some db software takes at least two or three times longer than it should because McAfee is going nuts trying to scan everything. It also severely slows everything down when java is being loaded. It spikes the damn CPU every time it happens and is extremely annoying.

I think it does that with any sizeable file, and is twice as bad if it is something compressed and zipped. It's not uncommon to wait a few minutes when scanning an installer over the network when those are zipped executeables.

 

[paulmr]

yeah same thing here too