View Full Version : Urgent! Win2k server problem - RPC and lsass crash, handle is invalid

30-08-2004, 09:55 PM
Hi, I am having a lot of strife with my two-day-old installation of Windows 2000 Advanced Server Evaluation (120-day) with SP4.

It's on one of my 2 new servers, both identical 333Mhz Celeron w/64MB RAM and a 3GB Western Digital HDD. I installed windows fresh on this computer, and then duplicated the hard drive for the other one (and changed the MAC address, ip address, name etc to make it do what I wanted).

My problem is that with the first one, I am having no end of problems. RPC has crashed twice, using 100% cpu and causing clients on the internet to get:

The handle is invalid.

...when they try to goto a site hosted on the server. I know it worked before RPC crashed because I have had people go to it.

I rebooted which fixed RPC, but just now the error is back.

What do I do? Note that I had no problems before SP4 but then I only ran it without SP4 for about a day.

Try it yourself, try these addresses:

http://local.jgih.com (JG Industries e-shop)
http://local.thestagegame.com (The Stage Game) (Default site when no host headers - basicly empty)

My IP address is of course static, so the third one won't change.

The hosted versions of these sites are available by replacing the 'local' with 'www'.

Curiously the Stage Game site has never failed. But I can confirm that there is nothing wrong with either of the other to (like a scripting error). But there could be something in that the shop (first in list) is ASP, and the intranet (3rd in list) is ASP, but the working Stage Game site is plain old html.

Also, I forgot, when I try to administrate IIS it says 'JG-SRV2 - Access is denied' even though it IS that computer. Arg

Thanks in advance,

30-08-2004, 11:53 PM

30-08-2004, 11:56 PM
** bump **

Graham L
31-08-2004, 03:37 PM
I'd run a memory tester first.

Is 64MB enough for W2k advanced server? How busy is the disk? :D

31-08-2004, 10:05 PM
The swap file was maxed out, I found, and increasing it to 384m initial and 768m max seemed to fix the general stability problems, but it still won't serve properly.

Graham L
01-09-2004, 03:03 PM
I'm not surprised. :O "Improved" software (such as SPs) is always bigger.

I'd still have a go with a memory test. Then put in another stick of memory. ;-) I'm sure MS would recommend a lot more than 64MB, even if they say it's the "minumum" amount.

A "handle" is the way you get to reach data etc. If that's invalid, it can be disastrous. That's why MS actually \check them, so you get an error message. :D Either you've got a handle and it's put in a bad memory location, or you haven't got one (so would get a zero value -- which is always invalid). There must be a log file for the server ... have a look at that.

But the access problem might be significant. If you can't manage the server, you might not be able to get handles.

01-09-2004, 08:07 PM
Hi guys, great news. The servers serves again.

I discovered to my horror that there was such a shortage of RAM (3MB free) that processes were simply being denied the memory they needed. This fully explains every random crash, and invalid handle in IIS.

I added another stick to have 128MB and 96MB in the other server, and they both work properly now. The 128MB one runs Exchange 2000, DNS, DHCP and IIS and the 96MB one is mostly as a backup, but also serves DNS.

Goto http://local.jgih.com and you should see it working perfectly.

Thanks for the help,

01-09-2004, 11:42 PM
Great news indeed, george.
Glad you're up & running happily.
Hope you don't mind if I suggest you check the spelling of *available* on the homepage - just to look professional...

Graham L
02-09-2004, 05:36 PM
Once upon a time, 64MB on a 386 running on a server would have been amazing. (In fact there probably wouldn't have been room for that much ion the board). A 64MB diisk would have been a desirable item.

These days, I suppose it's amazing that they worked at all ... :D

02-09-2004, 05:41 PM
*gulp* thanks for that Laura. Fixing it now. It really is great not to have to upload anything when you finish updating :).

Thanks for all the help

Jen C
02-09-2004, 06:38 PM
Hi George

Your site looks very professional. :) However I hope you don't mind if I make a small suggestion. Nowhere on your site do you have displayed a physical postal address or land line phone number. The only way of contacting you is via email. I would never purchase an item off a website no matter how professional it looks without having these details available. It is one of the golden rules when ordering products off the internet.

I know you were not asking for opinions on your site, so I hope you don't take offense at this.

Jen :)

Susan B
02-09-2004, 08:50 PM
> Nowhere on your site do you have displayed a physical postal
> address or land line phone number. The only way of
> contacting you is via email.

Good suggestion Jen but I found the details on this page (Nowhere). Did you miss that one or has George added it since your post?

I do have to say that it took some finding and should really be in a more prominent place. Otherwise, nice site. :-)

02-09-2004, 08:52 PM
Opinions are great, they help me improve it.

Any comments here are greatly appreciated. I am right now changing these two things. In the contact section I have added my physical address and telephone number, and I fixed the spelling error. It was just a typo as I was using a keyboard I am not used to.

If you check again you should see the modifications.


Jen C
02-09-2004, 09:04 PM
> If you check again you should see the modifications.

That's great now George :)

Not trying to push my luck or anything, but as Susan has mentioned the contact page is a bit hard to find. Rather than having the mailto link opening up your email client when clicking on the links under "Contacts", it would be easier to have this page (http://local.jgih.com/contact.asp) linked via "Contacts" section rather than having to find it via the Support (http://local.jgih.com/Support.asp) page. :)

I'll be quiet now :p

02-09-2004, 09:17 PM
Yes, I noticed this myself. I'll change it when I come back. Thanks for the helpful comments.