Minimum Disk Space Requirements still enforced???

Discussion in 'Update Services' started by Lawrence Garvin, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. I thought the Minimum Disk Space tests were being removed from the

    It was annoying enough that I had to sit through a test for 1GB of free
    space on my SYSTEM drive, when the \Program Files directory only needs 400MB
    and the \Inetpub folder is on a non-system drive.

    But now, it won't install the \WSUS folder tree on my non-system drive
    that has 3.8GB of free space, even though my database, post-SP2 patches for
    XP, and post-SP1 patches for Windows Server 2003, will use considerably less
    than 1GB of space.

    These kinds of disk space tests are totally unacceptable -- and somewhat
    ridiculous considering the product does not test for minimum CPU and RAM

    I don't need 3GB of storage to store what I intend to manage with WSUS,
    and I should not be forced by the product into installing more disk space
    than is necessary to support the environment.

    What are the workarounds, please? I want to deploy ths production
    version of this product on a server appropriately equipped for my production
    environment, with the minimum amount of disk space necessary, and those
    specifications should not be dictated to me by fiat from the Product Team!
    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCP
    Onsite Technology Solutions
    ICQ#: 38720625
    MSN Messenger:

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCP
    Onsite Technology Solutions
    ICQ#: 38720625
    MSN Messenger:
    Lawrence Garvin, Jun 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Note: The following "workaround" was successful for me to install WSUS on a
    minimum-capacity server.

    (1) To create 1GB of free space on a Windows Server 2003 SP1 system:
    (a) Temporarily move %windir%\%NTServicePackUninstall$ to a non-system
    (b) Temporarily move %windir%\ServicePackFiles to a non-system drive.
    These two folders consume almost 1GB of space all by themselves.

    If you still need additional space on your system drive:
    (c) Move your paging file to a non-system drive, and disable or minimize
    paging on the system drive.

    (2) To install the \WSUS folder tree with database and content store on a
    drive with less than whatever MS left in the install test...
    (a) Install the WSUS Server with the local store option disabled.
    (b) Reenable the local store option after installation using Options |
    Advanced from WSUSAdmin.
    This will install ~\WSUSContent to the \Program Files tree on your
    system drive.
    (c) Save Settings.
    (d) Create the \WSUS\WSUSContent folder
    (e) Use wsusutil.exe movecontent D:\WSUS\WSUSContent <logfilename> to
    have WSUS 'move' the content store to your desired location.
    (f) Run initial synchronization.

    The \Program Files\Update Services consumes 268MB after installation. I
    suspect the 1GB test is based on the "assumption" that /everything/ will be
    installed on the C: drive. Practically speaking, I recommend that \Inetpub
    and \WSUS be installed on non-system drives. The installation will
    auto-unarchive to the drive with the most free space, so that should never
    be an issue on the system drive.

    The $NTServicePackUninstall$ folder can be returned and compressed to 155MB.
    ServicePackFiles can be left on a non-system drive, but requires a registry
    sweep to change the several dozen reg entries. The easiest way to do this is
    export the relevant key, do a global S&R in Notepad, and then reimport the
    key. It has worked for me on a couple of machines so far.

    The only way that 1GB would actually ever be needed to install WSUS is if
    /everything/ were on the C: drive -- in which case having < 1GB of free
    space makes installing WSUS the /least/ of your problems. :)

    I now have Windows Server 2003 SP1 w/AD/DHCP/DNS, WSUS, and (as soon as I
    reinstall it) Symantec Client Security all running on a 3GB system partition
    with about 20% free space -- more than sufficient for a small office
    network. I promise to confess if that becomes an issue otherwise.

    I'll save the gloating about it being a PentiumII/300 w/192MB RAM until much
    later, but it's worth noting that the beta/RC install was on a PentiumII/400
    w/128MB RAM. Short of some responsiveness with the database (and I intend to
    migrate the database to SQL Server 2000 later this month, anyway), I was
    quite happy with that configuration in my environment.
    Lawrence Garvin, Jun 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lawrence Garvin

    a_user Guest

    We shouldnt have to come up with work arounds for this issue though. This
    is an oversight in my opinion.
    a_user, Jun 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.