Windows Update: svchost STILL at 100%

Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth. What's
going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?

"Steven" wrote:

>
> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth. What's
> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?
>
>
>
>
>

1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released 'standalone'
version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494

Direct Download links:

x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe

x64-based versions of Windows
http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe

Itanium-based versions of Windows
http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe

2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891

NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22 May-07.
If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove Programs
(make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already installed. cf.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx

3. Reboot.

The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems that
folks have been experiencing. See
http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx

<QP>
It’s important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client installed,
the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still be responsive
and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they will be shared,
but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles available. If a
task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may be slightly slower,
but should still be responsive during this time. Key to remember the MSI
fix and the new client address unresponsive or locked systems. CPU spikes
during some scans are expected, machine unresponsiveness is not. If your
watching the process monitor, you will still see 100% CPU during some scans
and this is expected behavior.
</QP>
Source:
http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org


Steven wrote:
> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
> What's
> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?

Thanks, I've done all the below (as per an article I found whilst trawling
through the MS site), however as you said, the CPU will still hit 100% with
svchosts.... whilst it does so, my CPU's core temp rockets. So I don't think
that it's a fake usage. Could someone please explain what it's trying to do
that's so compute intensive and why this didn't happen previously ?




"PA Bear" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released 'standalone'
> version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494
>
> Direct Download links:
>
> x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe
>
> x64-based versions of Windows
> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe
>
> Itanium-based versions of Windows
> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe
>
> 2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
>
> NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22 May-07.
> If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove Programs
> (make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already installed. cf.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx
>
> 3. Reboot.
>
> The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems
> that folks have been experiencing. See
> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
> and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx
>
> <QP>
> It’s important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client installed,
> the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still be responsive
> and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they will be shared,
> but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles available. If a
> task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may be slightly
> slower, but should still be responsive during this time. Key to remember
> the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or locked systems.
> CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine unresponsiveness is
> not. If your watching the process monitor, you will still see 100% CPU
> during some scans and this is expected behavior.
> </QP>
> Source:
> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>
>
> Steven wrote:
>> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
>> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
>> What's
>> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?
>

When CPU spikes, is the machine essentially crippled? Does the spiking stop
after 5-10 minutes? Is Microsoft Update your default update source (vs
Windows Update)?
--
~PA Bear

Steven wrote:
> Thanks, I've done all the below (as per an article I found whilst trawling
> through the MS site), however as you said, the CPU will still hit 100%
> with
> svchosts.... whilst it does so, my CPU's core temp rockets. So I don't
> think
> that it's a fake usage. Could someone please explain what it's trying to
> do
> that's so compute intensive and why this didn't happen previously ?
>
>
>
>
> "PA Bear" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released 'standalone'
>> version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494
>>
>> Direct Download links:
>>
>> x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe
>>
>> x64-based versions of Windows
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe
>>
>> Itanium-based versions of Windows
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe
>>
>> 2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
>>
>> NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22
>> May-07.
>> If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove Programs
>> (make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already installed. cf.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx
>>
>> 3. Reboot.
>>
>> The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems
>> that folks have been experiencing. See
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>> and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx
>>
>> <QP>
>> It’s important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>> installed,
>> the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still be responsive
>> and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they will be
>> shared,
>> but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles available. If a
>> task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may be slightly
>> slower, but should still be responsive during this time. Key to remember
>> the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or locked systems.
>> CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine unresponsiveness is
>> not. If your watching the process monitor, you will still see 100% CPU
>> during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>> </QP>
>> Source:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>>
>>
>> Steven wrote:
>>> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
>>> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
>>> What's
>>> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in the KB article for the Windows
Update patches does it not say that you will still get high CPU usage, but
the machine should no longer become sluggish and or unresponsive?

--
----
Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
How to Post http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.db-pc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Steven" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Thanks, I've done all the below (as per an article I found whilst trawling
> through the MS site), however as you said, the CPU will still hit 100%
> with svchosts.... whilst it does so, my CPU's core temp rockets. So I
> don't think that it's a fake usage. Could someone please explain what it's
> trying to do that's so compute intensive and why this didn't happen
> previously ?
>
>
>
>
> "PA Bear" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released 'standalone'
>> version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494
>>
>> Direct Download links:
>>
>> x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe
>>
>> x64-based versions of Windows
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe
>>
>> Itanium-based versions of Windows
>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe
>>
>> 2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
>>
>> NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22
>> May-07. If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove
>> Programs (make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already installed.
>> cf. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx
>>
>> 3. Reboot.
>>
>> The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems
>> that folks have been experiencing. See
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>> and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx
>>
>> <QP>
>> It's important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>> installed, the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still be
>> responsive and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they
>> will be shared, but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles
>> available. If a task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may
>> be slightly slower, but should still be responsive during this time. Key
>> to remember the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or
>> locked systems. CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine
>> unresponsiveness is not. If your watching the process monitor, you will
>> still see 100% CPU during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>> </QP>
>> Source:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>>
>>
>> Steven wrote:
>>> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
>>> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
>>> What's
>>> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?
>>
>
>

Yes, as posted earlier:

>> <QP>
>> It's important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>> installed, the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still be
>> responsive and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they
>> will be shared, but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles
>> available. If a task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may
>> be slightly slower, but should still be responsive during this time. Key
>> to remember the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or
>> locked systems. CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine
>> unresponsiveness is not. If your watching the process monitor, you will
>> still see 100% CPU during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>> </QP>
>> Source:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org


Dave B. wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in the KB article for the Windows
> Update patches does it not say that you will still get high CPU usage, but
> the machine should no longer become sluggish and or unresponsive?
>
>> Thanks, I've done all the below (as per an article I found whilst
>> trawling
>> through the MS site), however as you said, the CPU will still hit 100%
>> with svchosts.... whilst it does so, my CPU's core temp rockets. So I
>> don't think that it's a fake usage. Could someone please explain what
>> it's
>> trying to do that's so compute intensive and why this didn't happen
>> previously ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "PA Bear" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> 1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released
>>> 'standalone'
>>> version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494
>>>
>>> Direct Download links:
>>>
>>> x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe
>>>
>>> x64-based versions of Windows
>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe
>>>
>>> Itanium-based versions of Windows
>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe
>>>
>>> 2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
>>>
>>> NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22
>>> May-07. If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove
>>> Programs (make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already
>>> installed.
>>> cf. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx
>>>
>>> 3. Reboot.
>>>
>>> The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems
>>> that folks have been experiencing. See
>>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>>> and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx
>>>
>>> <QP>
>>> It's important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>>> installed, the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still
>>> be
>>> responsive and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they
>>> will be shared, but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles
>>> available. If a task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may
>>> be slightly slower, but should still be responsive during this time.
>>> Key
>>> to remember the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or
>>> locked systems. CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine
>>> unresponsiveness is not. If your watching the process monitor, you will
>>> still see 100% CPU during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>>> </QP>
>>> Source:
>>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>>> --
>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>>> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven wrote:
>>>> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
>>>> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
>>>> What's
>>>> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?

I have a dual core CPU PC.
svchost.exe runs at 50% ie 100% of one core.

I can provide Performance Logs if you really want... but really, Microsoft
should be doing their own homework... unless of course, this is a ploy to
move everyone onto Vista...





"PA Bear" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Yes, as posted earlier:
>
>>> <QP>
>>> It's important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>>> installed, the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still
>>> be
>>> responsive and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they
>>> will be shared, but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles
>>> available. If a task is running at the same time as MSI, the system may
>>> be slightly slower, but should still be responsive during this time.
>>> Key
>>> to remember the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or
>>> locked systems. CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine
>>> unresponsiveness is not. If your watching the process monitor, you will
>>> still see 100% CPU during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>>> </QP>
>>> Source:
>>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>
>
> Dave B. wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in the KB article for the Windows
>> Update patches does it not say that you will still get high CPU usage,
>> but
>> the machine should no longer become sluggish and or unresponsive?
>>
>>> Thanks, I've done all the below (as per an article I found whilst
>>> trawling
>>> through the MS site), however as you said, the CPU will still hit 100%
>>> with svchosts.... whilst it does so, my CPU's core temp rockets. So I
>>> don't think that it's a fake usage. Could someone please explain what
>>> it's
>>> trying to do that's so compute intensive and why this didn't happen
>>> previously ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "PA Bear" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> 1. If you've not done so already, install the newly released
>>>> 'standalone'
>>>> version of Windows Update Agent 3.0, v7.0.6000.374
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932494
>>>>
>>>> Direct Download links:
>>>>
>>>> x86-based versions of Windows (most users)
>>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x86.exe
>>>>
>>>> x64-based versions of Windows
>>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...gent30-x64.exe
>>>>
>>>> Itanium-based versions of Windows
>>>> http://download.windowsupdate.com/v7...ent30-ia64.exe
>>>>
>>>> 2. If you've not done so already, (re)install this (updated) fix:
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
>>>>
>>>> NB: Windows Update/Automatic Updates started offering 927891 on 22
>>>> May-07. If "Update for [Windows XP] (KB927891)" is listed in Add/Remove
>>>> Programs (make sure Show Updates box is checked), it's already
>>>> installed.
>>>> cf. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...ry/927891.mspx
>>>>
>>>> 3. Reboot.
>>>>
>>>> The MS update team believes that this solves all three svchost problems
>>>> that folks have been experiencing. See
>>>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>>>> and http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...update-on.aspx
>>>>
>>>> <QP>
>>>> It's important to note that with the MSI fix and the new client
>>>> installed, the CPU may still go near 100%, but the system should still
>>>> be
>>>> responsive and not lock up. If another task requires CPU cycles they
>>>> will be shared, but if the system is idle, MSI will use the full cycles
>>>> available. If a task is running at the same time as MSI, the system
>>>> may
>>>> be slightly slower, but should still be responsive during this time.
>>>> Key
>>>> to remember the MSI fix and the new client address unresponsive or
>>>> locked systems. CPU spikes during some scans are expected, machine
>>>> unresponsiveness is not. If your watching the process monitor, you will
>>>> still see 100% CPU during some scans and this is expected behavior.
>>>> </QP>
>>>> Source:
>>>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...follow-up.aspx
>>>> --
>>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>>>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>>>> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steven wrote:
>>>>> Windows Automatic updates set to Notify, but don't download, and still
>>>>> svchost at 100% for a few mins on a DSL line - so it's not bandwidth.
>>>>> What's
>>>>> going on. Who is accountable for this problem ?
>

Please begin your /own/ thread about /your/ problems.

gaijin wrote:
> I have a dual core CPU PC.
> svchost.exe runs at 50% ie 100% of one core.
>
> I can provide Performance Logs if you really want... but really, Microsoft
> should be doing their own homework... unless of course, this is a ploy to
> move everyone onto Vista...
<snip>