WSUS takes a long time to approve updates

Discussion in 'Update Services' started by David Hicks, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. David Hicks

    David Hicks Guest

    When approving updates (even just a few, say 5 or 6) WSUS takes several
    minutes to approve the updates - and considerably longer (hours) if there
    are lots of updates to approve (having just installed it, there are about
    420 updates that have to be approved/declined for about 10-12 groups of

    I used SUS prior to WSUS and I'm pretty sure that it didn't take anything
    like the same amount of time.

    Is this an issue with WSUS or is it my install that is at fault?It's running
    on a Windows 2000 server with all of the update recommended for running
    David Hicks, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. David, this may be just a function of "performance" on your system

    Since you're running on Windows 2000, that means you're using MSDE2000, not
    WMSDE, and the admin page could also be hitting the performance limitations
    of MSDE2000 when doing multiple approvals, depending on how the WSUS program
    code submits those multiple requests. If they're going to the server as a
    series of individual UPDATE requests, then you're probably getting backed up
    in the performance limitations of MSDE2000.

    Aside from that, one cause I've seen pop up a couple of times has been
    remediated by performing a defrag on the logical volume that contains the
    SUSDB.MDF file.

    Considering that the database file is initially created as an 'empty' file,
    then populated with a couple of synchronizations, then populated with your
    entire collection of PCs creating UPDATEs over 24-48 hours, then followed by
    monthly UPDATEs with new metadata, I'm thinking that by the time the file
    hits a few hundred megabytes, it's probably fragmented all to heck on the

    You could measure this by monitoring Disk I/O on the logical volume while
    performing administration tasks.

    With SUS everything was stored in text based XML files, and those files were
    considerably smaller in size, so it's kinda tough to compare performance
    between the two.
    Lawrence Garvin, Aug 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Hicks

    David Hicks Guest

    Thanks for your help Lawrence!

    You've given me a few things to look at.
    David Hicks, Aug 26, 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.