"the signature for Windows Server is invalid. the error code is e.

not enough storage available to complete this operation"

setup causes fatal error
I will try with catalog service included, for now here is the config that failed
the catalogs service did not help but prevented another error during the boot setup stage with some .exe file, im trying to keep certificate management as well, but that didn't help either

I have narrowed down the location of the bug, it is located in one of the red services components

Ok, but why would you use Server 2k3 without SP2?

"if it's not broke, don't fix it"
newer windows = more bloat (newer = bigger)
smaller = faster (less code)
etc... same reason I am running XP with service pack 0
as for security, you do NOT put security in to the hands of others, not microsuck and not anyone else, it is up to YOU to implement your own "security fixes", I have proven that it can be done with service pack 0, I can prove that it can be done with 2003, although, less work in needed for the latter, but as a result more work is needed to "unsecure" it in some places - too bad that was not the default for all the microcrap

I found the problem - it's "Net Logon", needs to be left to work

btw you may find that the server 2003 is no better than xp, in fact it is slower - a little, especially when it comes to memory bandwidth (~200 MB/s reduced memory average speed, a little higher latency), most significant impact is in memory read speed (~1000 MB/s) - maybe due to new caching algorithms.

there is however one advantage - lower latency default GUI/Shell (explorer.exe/csrss.exe/win32k.sys), perhaps if will be deemed necessary and important (considering deleted edition uses a special deleted edition version of blackbox, which does not really need any more speed as it is already uses <1% on a P3 500 Mhz and < 1 MB physical memory (ICC10 SSE version)) I will consider importing those files into XP SP0 and SP1.

for every thing you do in a computer there must be a reason - I load SP1 because I know for sure exactly what I need from it (support for partitions larger than 127 GB), and I load SP0 because I DONT need support for that, if I know that my system is going to open to the internet - I will delete the .sys driver from the system of the faulty component instead of installing any service pack or any part of a service pack (updates)

don't know how to explain why that approch is, but I can only quote


I guess that works well for me

btw, sig test system is outdated, this is the new one: http://manoa.flnet.org/newsystem.html

btw was testing SP1 for 2003, got this error after integrating service pack 1 into 2003, wonder if it's going to work, I have added the tcpip patch because it was selectable, which seems strange that microsuck created connection limit for 2003 server....but maybe a nlite bug, but only occurs when service pack 1 integrated

apparently it works, here are tests results:



to summarize those results:
#1 problem of 2003 Server is memory performance, which is not fixed in SP1
#2 a definite performance degradation with increasing service packs is proven, even worse memory performance
#3 the "good" news: other performance factors are less affected, but eventually are affected from the memory speed

the system on which tests were run is in signature, the system configuration that was used is #5 (maximum) with 2.0V on RAM (instead of 1.95), the system uses water cooling, temperature does not affect test results (throttling is also disabled in bios)

maybe I should test xp/2003/2008 x64 editions and 2000 also - too bad x64's cannot be compared to x86

as to your question - I hope these results answer it, I should add XP SP0, XP1 later, maybe 2008, but im not sure, since 2008 is based on vista it is highly unlikely that it's performance could approach that of 2003 or 2000, let alone XP, even with the fact that 2008 is up to 17% faster than Vista SP1, it seems to me that the best win32 is XP, at least as far as software performance is concerned, but what else is there anyway ?

2k3 is lower latency because of disabled hardware accelerations.
I fell for that trick before as well, but after setting 2k3 to the same settings as XP it was running the same.

You say it is not broken, but the list of sp1 and sp2 fixes say otherwise. I don't see the point in pushing old OS, even if it is little faster because machines are faster as well. Try win2k if you don't care about software advances and just in it for the performance and size. I am not trying to offend, just saying.
I am on Vista and it is slowest of the bunch but I like it. Thus vLite to make it friendlier.

Anyway back on topic. Netlogon...that one proved problematic before, gonna check if it is dependency or a mistake and solve/hide. Thx.

- "same settings" - what settings ?
- "running the same" - what tests did you do to verify that ? could you show me ?
- "You say it is not broken", and I have proof !
- "the list of sp1 and sp2 fixes say otherwise" - do you trust microsuck ? or facts ? or yourself ?
- "little faster" - im sorry, but 1000 MB/s of memory speed is 10-20 times faster than the L1 cache of a pentium 200mmx, and faster than the L2 cache speed of a pentium 3 500 mhz, see here: http://manoa.flnet.org/server.html, you can't call that a "little faster"

- "software advances" ? it seems to me more like software fallbacks, just how do you define that ?
- "in it for the performance and size" - if the "software advancements" are not that, then what are they for ?
- "but I like it" - I find it hard to understand why would anyone like to run their software slower

I should get to testing SP0 and SP1 to see what differences are there if any
also not to offend but when you stated a little faster and running the same - any chance you were testing in software emulators ? just to clear any doubts all tests were running on HARDWARE, no emulators

I thought machines are faster so that you could put their speed to use, not to waste

In a way, not installing SP2 is basically saying you trust MS got it right the first time when releasing Server 2003. That's a very scary thought.

monohouse, you are little too hard core for me.
Comparing SP to RTM regarding trust is funny because MS also made the RTM in case you did not know.

Lets keep this discussion at Netlogon, I am not interested in unpatched old OSes.

you didn't understand, I mean that you trust what the "list of fixes" say, not whether you trust microsuck itself, but "In a way" "is basically saying you trust MS"

let's be clear: I don't trust anyone, not you, not MS, not linux, not bush - only me and only the changes that I make to the system - and that is why Deleted Edition exists, along with the speed improvements, but then "In a way" "is basically saying you trust me" but not entirely - because all the changes that I make are fully documented, and concept is simple - deleted as much as you can - if it can be deleted - delete it, and when you delete microsuck's files - it means that you are not "basically saying you trust MS", because the more microsuck files you delete, the less you "trust MS", also I only trust my own examinations and tests, and you don't so "is basically saying you trust MS"

also, the only reason that I allow myself to be making threads in a forum that is based on a domain that starts with "ms" is because I trust nuhi and his work on nLite and that I whant to contribute what I can to make sure that some of these bugs can be fixed and because I believe that nlite is worth that, if it was ANYTHING else I would never allow myself to type a site that starts with "ms", so "basically saying you trust MS" ? maybe, I guess it is hard to clearly define that, maybe everyone that runs that microcrap sooner or later "basically saying" they "trust MS", I can only be sure of one thing, that im trying hard not to, and maybe with nLite and Deleted Edition, that can be achieved

as for netlogon - that is all I know for now, since it is obvious that 2003 is slower, there is not much need to test it any further, just check if that maximum number of connections option is availabe when integrating sp1, and whether or not it should be there in the first place, just strange that microsuck would limit connections on server