Latest patch parses 1.1 pages with 2.0

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Hi,

    I have a .net 1.1 app. With the latest patch, some pages are being
    consistently parsed with the .Net 2.0 framework. There is a particular class
    of page that is being consistently parsed as 2.0. All other pages are fine.
    1.1 is the registered framework.

    Uninstalling the 2.0 framework fixed the problem. Server is 2K3 standard.

    On other servers I've had similar issues (attempting to parse the web.config
    file with 2.0).

    Anyone else experienced this?
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. It looks like the application has the default framework version set to 2.0
    (In IIS Manager / ASP.Net tab)

    "David Cameron" wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I have a .net 1.1 app. With the latest patch, some pages are being
    > consistently parsed with the .Net 2.0 framework. There is a particular class
    > of page that is being consistently parsed as 2.0. All other pages are fine.
    > 1.1 is the registered framework.
    >
    > Uninstalling the 2.0 framework fixed the problem. Server is 2K3 standard.
    >
    > On other servers I've had similar issues (attempting to parse the web.config
    > file with 2.0).
    >
    > Anyone else experienced this?
    =?Utf-8?B?U2VyZ2V5IFBvYmVyZXpvdnNraXk=?=, Aug 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > It looks like the application has the default framework version set to 2.0
    > (In IIS Manager / ASP.Net tab)


    No. the default framework is 1.1 (which I mentioned above).

    Even if the default framework were 2.0, that doesn't explain why some pages
    get parsed with 2.0 and some with 1.1.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 8, 2007
    #3
  4. re:
    !> Even if the default framework were 2.0, that doesn't explain why some pages
    !> get parsed with 2.0 and some with 1.1.

    Please open a command window at :
    Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
    ....and run

    aspnet_regiis -lk

    That will list all your applications and tell you which framework each app is running.

    You might be surprised by the results.




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> It looks like the application has the default framework version set to 2.0
    >> (In IIS Manager / ASP.Net tab)

    >
    > No. the default framework is 1.1 (which I mentioned above).


    > Even if the default framework were 2.0, that doesn't explain why some pages
    > get parsed with 2.0 and some with 1.1.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 8, 2007
    #4
  5. I uninstalled the 2.0 framework from the machine that was showing the
    specific issues. Regardless, I was running aspnet_regiis.exe -r in the
    v1.1.4322 directory.

    That does not explain several issues:
    - why 2.0 automatically registered itself as the default framework
    - why the web.config file was consistently being parsed by 2.0, right after
    running aspnet_regiis.exe -r
    - why some pages were being parsed with 1.1 and some with 2.0
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 9, 2007
    #5
  6. I should add, I've had other machines show similar issues. While I haven't
    had machines parse some pages with 2.0 and some with 1.1, I have seen 2.0
    register as the default framework, and the parsing the config file issue.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Did you check out what I suggested ?

    ----------------
    Please open a command window at :
    Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
    ....and run

    aspnet_regiis -lk

    That will list all your applications and tell you which framework each app is running.
    ----------------




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I uninstalled the 2.0 framework from the machine that was showing the
    > specific issues. Regardless, I was running aspnet_regiis.exe -r in the
    > v1.1.4322 directory.
    >
    > That does not explain several issues:
    > - why 2.0 automatically registered itself as the default framework
    > - why the web.config file was consistently being parsed by 2.0, right after
    > running aspnet_regiis.exe -r
    > - why some pages were being parsed with 1.1 and some with 2.0
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Did you check out what I suggested ?

    ----------------
    Please open a command window at :
    Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
    ....and run

    aspnet_regiis -lk

    That will list all your applications and tell you which framework each app is running.
    ----------------




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I should add, I've had other machines show similar issues. While I haven't
    > had machines parse some pages with 2.0 and some with 1.1, I have seen 2.0
    > register as the default framework, and the parsing the config file issue.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Yes I did what you suggested, however given that I have uninstalled 2.0 on
    the server in question, it lists all sites as 1.1.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 10, 2007
    #9
  10. A dime gets you a buck that your uninstallation of 2.0 was unwarranted.




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yes I did what you suggested, however given that I have uninstalled 2.0 on
    > the server in question, it lists all sites as 1.1.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 10, 2007
    #10
  11. > A dime gets you a buck that your uninstallation of 2.0 was unwarranted.

    You'd lose, however I'm hardly likely to install on that production server
    again.

    Anway...

    Riddle me this, I have another server with similar issues. aspnet_regiis -lk
    returns 1.1 for all sites running on the server. However hitting the server
    returns:

    "Configuration Error"

    "Line 117: <httpRuntime
    Line 118: executionTimeout="90"
    Line 119: maxRequestLength="500000000"
    Line 120: useFullyQualifiedRedirectUrl="false"
    Line 121: minFreeThreads="

    "Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832;
    ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.832"

    This is one of the issues I referred to earlier. 2.0 has no business parsing
    the file.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 10, 2007
    #11
  12. re:
    !> I have another server with similar issues. aspnet_regiis -lk returns 1.1
    !> for all sites running on the server. However hitting the server returns:

    !> "Configuration Error"
    !> "Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832;
    !> ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.832"

    While all your sites are configured for 1.1, the root site is configured for 2.0.

    You can confirm this by :

    1. right clicking "Web Sites" in the IIS Manager,
    and selecting "Properties" and then the "ASP.NET" tab.

    2. right clicking "Default Web Site" in the IIS Manager,
    and selecting "Properties" and then the "ASP.NET" tab.

    One of the two is configured for the .Net Framework 2.0.






    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> A dime gets you a buck that your uninstallation of 2.0 was unwarranted.

    >
    > You'd lose, however I'm hardly likely to install on that production server
    > again.
    >
    > Anway...
    >
    > Riddle me this, I have another server with similar issues. aspnet_regiis -lk
    > returns 1.1 for all sites running on the server. However hitting the server
    > returns:
    >
    > "Configuration Error"
    >
    > "Line 117: <httpRuntime
    > Line 118: executionTimeout="90"
    > Line 119: maxRequestLength="500000000"
    > Line 120: useFullyQualifiedRedirectUrl="false"
    > Line 121: minFreeThreads="
    >
    > "Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832;
    > ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.832"
    >
    > This is one of the issues I referred to earlier. 2.0 has no business parsing
    > the file.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 10, 2007
    #12
  13. I can't confirm that, as I have re-registered all sites with 1.1.

    However I do have a command prompt open from before I registered all as 1.1,
    but was recieving the error. It includes the results from a call to
    aspnet-regiis -lk. It reads:

    W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.2407

    This is calling aspnet-regiis -lk for 2.0. There is no default site and you
    can see that the root site is registered for 1.1.

    Are you telling me that I would get different results if I had checked this
    from the MMC plugin? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 13, 2007
    #13
  14. re:
    !> This is calling aspnet-regiis -lk for 2.0.

    Actually, that's calling aspnet_regiis -lk

    re:
    !> There is no default site and you can see that the root site is registered for 1.1.

    Yes but, in spite of that, the "Default Web Site" might be registered to 2.0,
    and/or the "Web Sites" might be registered to 2.0.

    re:
    !> Are you telling me that I would get different results if I had checked this
    !> from the MMC plugin? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.

    What stops you from opening the IIS Manager and seeing for yourself ?




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I can't confirm that, as I have re-registered all sites with 1.1.
    >
    > However I do have a command prompt open from before I registered all as 1.1,
    > but was recieving the error. It includes the results from a call to
    > aspnet-regiis -lk. It reads:
    >
    > W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    > W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.2407
    >
    > This is calling aspnet-regiis -lk for 2.0. There is no default site and you
    > can see that the root site is registered for 1.1.
    >
    > Are you telling me that I would get different results if I had checked this
    > from the MMC plugin? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 13, 2007
    #14
  15. > Yes but, in spite of that, the "Default Web Site" might be registered to 2.0,
    > and/or the "Web Sites" might be registered to 2.0.


    There is no default web site. It has been removed. Are you saying that there
    is some other sort of default website? Just to be clear on what I mean, when
    I say default website I mean the website that ships with IIS.

    > What stops you from opening the IIS Manager and seeing for yourself ?


    Nothing. Did you read my comment where I said:
    "I can't confirm that, as I have re-registered all sites with 1.1."

    Hence opening the IIS manager shows ... wait for it ... all sites as 1.1.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 13, 2007
    #15
  16. > If you do have it, please right-click "Web Sites", select "Properties" and
    then the "ASP.NET" tab.
    > Jot down the ASP.NET version the ASP.NET tab reports...and post it.


    It reports 1.1. Same as the aspnet_regiis -lk listing I posted.

    > Question for you : For your "1.1 sites", have you created IIS *web sites* or *ASP.NET applications* ?
    > It makes a lot of difference which one you've used.


    I know. These are IIS web sites.

    Now, back to the issues.

    You are in luck, one of the sites is malfunctioning again, on one of the
    test servers that I can play with. It is worth noting that this is a site
    that was definitely registered to 1.1 prior to a reboot on the server.

    The site in question is 2034039847.

    Now the output of aspnet_regiis -lk in the 1.1 directory is:
    W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.0

    The output of aspnet_regiis -lk in the 2.0 directory is:
    W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.0

    (identical)

    The properties for the root site in the MMC plugin show the .Net version as
    1.1. The properties for the specific site in the MMC plugin show the .Net
    version as 1.1.

    I think at this point we have established that 1.1 is the registered
    framework. Agreed?

    I would copy in your identity file however the site is returning the same
    configuration error as earlier:
    Configuration Error
    ....
    Parser Error Message: The value for the property 'maxRequestLength' is not
    valid. The error is: The value must be inside the range 0-2097151.
    ....
    Line 117: <httpRuntime
    Line 118: executionTimeout="90"
    Line 119: maxRequestLength="500000000"
    Line 120: useFullyQualifiedRedirectUrl="false"
    Line 121: minFreeThreads="8"
    ....
    Source File: <path>\web.config Line: 119
    Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832; ASP.NET
    Version:2.0.50727.832

    Just to be clear, I have removed the path in the code above and replaced it
    with <path>.

    Now I could fix the config file to run happily under 2.0, and then copy your
    identity.aspx file in. That doesn't change the fact that there is a serious
    bug here. 2.0 is parsing a config file while everything is reporting that 1.1
    is the active framework.
    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgQ2FtZXJvbg==?=, Aug 14, 2007
    #16
  17. re:
    !> That doesn't change the fact that there is a serious bug here.

    Maybe; maybe not. You could also have a bad install.

    Or, you could have a configuration element which you've configured/misconfigured
    but now don't have any more access to, for whatever reason.

    re:
    !> 2.0 is parsing a config file while everything is reporting that 1.1 is the active framework.

    How did you "uninstall" the .Net Framework 2.0 ?

    I suspect that what you call an "active framework" is simply that you have reconfigured
    your sites to run under 1.1, but that the .Net Framework 2.0 is still registered with IIS
    and is, therefore, still active.

    See below for the instructions to *uninstall* the .Net Framework 2.0

    re:
    !> I think at this point we have established that 1.1 is the registered framework. Agreed?

    Nope. What we have established is that you have a number
    of *sites* configured to run under the .Net Framework 1.1.

    If you truly have no need for the .Net Framework 2.0, uninstall it by going to
    the Windows Control Panel, opening the "Add or Remove Programs" tool,
    finding the entry for the .Net Framework 2.0, selecting it and clicking the
    "Change/Remove" button.

    If you don't want to *physically* uninstall the .Net Framework 2.0, just run

    aspnet_regiis -u

    from :
    drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727

    That will uninstall the .Net Framework 2.0 from IIS's mappings, but will not delete the Framework's files.
    That means that you could, later, reinstall it, but that it will not run under IIS until you reinstall it.

    All existing scriptmaps mapped to the .Net Framework 2.0 will be remapped to the
    highest remaining version of ASP.NET installed on the machine (1.1 in your case).

    Once you've done that, *then* only the .Net Framework 1.1 will be active on that machine.

    re:
    !> Now I could fix the config file to run happily under 2.0, and then copy your identity.aspx file in.

    What you're seeing is not a 2.0-specific feature.
    The maxRequestLength default size is the same for both 1.1 and 2.0.

    re:
    !> maxRequestLength="500000000"

    How did you ever end up with that number ?

    maxRequestLength indicates the maximum file upload size supported by ASP.NET, in KB.
    The default is 4096 (4 MB), both for the .Net Framework 1.1 and 2.0.

    What's specified in your config file is that maxrequestLength is 500,000,000 KB = 500 GB!
    I don't think you want to have people upload 500GB files to your server. :)

    Change that to a number which reflects the maximum size file upload you want to support.
    If you want to support 8MB file uploads, change it to 8192. If 16MB, change it to 16384.

    That will immediately allow you to run the identiy.aspx code I sent you.
    Run it and post back the results.

    Fiddling with configuration files without knowing what
    a parameter does is the easiest way to wreck a server.

    I recommend that you study, very carefully, configuration parameters before changing them.

    ....and don't forget to, at least, run aspnet_regiis -u
    from the .Net Framework 2.0 directory, if you truly have no need to run 2.0 code.

    Doing that will immediately end the 2.0 file processing you're seeing.





    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "David Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> If you do have it, please right-click "Web Sites", select "Properties" and

    > then the "ASP.NET" tab.
    >> Jot down the ASP.NET version the ASP.NET tab reports...and post it.

    >
    > It reports 1.1. Same as the aspnet_regiis -lk listing I posted.
    >
    >> Question for you : For your "1.1 sites", have you created IIS *web sites* or *ASP.NET applications* ?
    >> It makes a lot of difference which one you've used.

    >
    > I know. These are IIS web sites.
    >
    > Now, back to the issues.
    >
    > You are in luck, one of the sites is malfunctioning again, on one of the
    > test servers that I can play with. It is worth noting that this is a site
    > that was definitely registered to 1.1 prior to a reboot on the server.
    >
    > The site in question is 2034039847.
    >
    > Now the output of aspnet_regiis -lk in the 1.1 directory is:
    > W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    >
    > The output of aspnet_regiis -lk in the 2.0 directory is:
    > W3SVC/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/1370742412/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/1453161142/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2034039847/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2080259255/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/2116458577/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/370149253/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/384844167/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    > W3SVC/891393290/root/ 1.1.4322.0
    >
    > (identical)
    >
    > The properties for the root site in the MMC plugin show the .Net version as
    > 1.1. The properties for the specific site in the MMC plugin show the .Net
    > version as 1.1.
    >
    > I think at this point we have established that 1.1 is the registered
    > framework. Agreed?
    >
    > I would copy in your identity file however the site is returning the same
    > configuration error as earlier:
    > Configuration Error
    > ...
    > Parser Error Message: The value for the property 'maxRequestLength' is not
    > valid. The error is: The value must be inside the range 0-2097151.
    > ...
    > Line 117: <httpRuntime
    > Line 118: executionTimeout="90"
    > Line 119: maxRequestLength="500000000"
    > Line 120: useFullyQualifiedRedirectUrl="false"
    > Line 121: minFreeThreads="8"
    > ...
    > Source File: <path>\web.config Line: 119
    > Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832; ASP.NET
    > Version:2.0.50727.832
    >
    > Just to be clear, I have removed the path in the code above and replaced it
    > with <path>.
    >
    > Now I could fix the config file to run happily under 2.0, and then copy your
    > identity.aspx file in. That doesn't change the fact that there is a serious
    > bug here. 2.0 is parsing a config file while everything is reporting that 1.1
    > is the active framework.
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 14, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jan Peter Stotz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,135
    Jan Peter Stotz
    Mar 9, 2005
  2. John Blair
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,579
    =?Utf-8?B?SWNlU2NvdA==?=
    Mar 23, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?VGltIEI=?=

    Problem loading usercontrol since latest ie patch....

    =?Utf-8?B?VGltIEI=?=, Apr 15, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    671
  4. Travis Oliphant
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    234
    Paul Rubin
    Oct 23, 2007
  5. rdcelit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    109
    rdcelit
    Dec 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page