500 ORT not reconised

A client of mine is having issues connecting to a server to upload his files.
Up until 2 weeks ago everything went fine..

now often time his files start to transfer but are slow then after 2 or 3..the file hangs and times out

we get  the following error:

 500 ORT not understood

I can't seem to find ANYWHERE that tells me what that means...

He can connect to other servers no problem and transfer, its only this one server giving the problems.
I can connect from my location using the same ftp program and have no problem.

We used another ftp program with him and still have issues transfering.

Hes running a Win XP system
Linksys bef11s4 router. (I even have upnp enabled and have tried him on DMZ)

we have tried using Cute ftp Pro 6.0 purchased.
and WS FTP LE.

can anyone suggest anything?
blckknightAsked:
Who is Participating?

Improve company productivity with a Business Account.Sign Up

x
 
periwinkleConnect With a Mentor Commented:
If you perform a tracert to the IP address from his machine, does the route differ than the one you see on the machines that work?
0
 
humeniukCommented:
<< Up until 2 weeks ago everything went fine >> & << Hes running a Win XP system >>

Did he upgrade to Windows XP Service Pack 2 recently (it was also recently changed from being a manual update to an automatic update, so it may have been installed without him even knowing it)?  This has caused a lot of people a number of problems.  If so, the first thing to look at is the Windows firewall, which is enabled by default in SP2.  However, there are a number of other 'security upgrades' that people have had issues with.

If you think it might be SP2, you can take advantage of the fact that Microsoft is offering free SP2 support for a limited time (free support?  microsoft?  clearly they're aware there's a problem if they're taking that radical step) - see http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-us;Prodoffer80&sd=GN.

Available:
Chat Support - No charge support for issues related to SP2.
E-mail Support  - Response time: Up to 24 hours (Monday - Friday) - No charge support for issues related to SP2.
Phone Support  - Options Phone Numbers - No charge support for issues related to SP2. (888) SP2-HELP (772-4357)

(thanks to Astaec for the contact info in another thread)
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Yes he upgraded to XP SP2.
We disabled the firewall.

Thats awesoem to hear about the free support I will hit them up for that then.
Thank you..

If anyone else still has any possible solutions please do contribute.
0
Improve Your Query Performance Tuning

In this FREE six-day email course, you'll learn from Janis Griffin, Database Performance Evangelist. She'll teach 12 steps that you can use to optimize your queries as much as possible and see measurable results in your work. Get started today!

 
periwinkleCommented:
Based on other things that I found when searching on your error message through google, it definitely seems to point towards the XP firewall;  see:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842242&product=windowsxpsp2
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
I had him try with a different computer on the network..that computer does not run XP SP2 and we had  the same issue.

when using WSFTP it just runs EXTREMELY slow.
and eventually hung.

Will look into the SP2 issue.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Not seeing the 500 ORT issue anymore
we can download from the server..
we can't upload properly...files begin to upload then the connection starts to stall out.

We can connect to other FTP servers and transfer this is isolated to 1 single server.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Is the server running Windows XP?<G>
0
 
humeniukCommented:
That's the question - what FTP server are you running on what  OS?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Nope server is running Linux.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
Very useful link, btw, periwinkle, but wasn't much fun to read.  I see a lot of future headaches in there.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
<< We can connect to other FTP servers and transfer this is isolated to 1 single server. >>
That's good, at least.

<<  I had him try with a different computer on the network..that computer does not run XP SP2 and we had  the same issue. >>
What OS & version is that one running?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
<<That's good, at least.>>
No cuz this one server as over 150 domains that he handles. The other servers aren't as important.

the 2nd computer we tried is just XP without SP2 installed and used a different ftp program.

tonight going to try from home from my system with XP SP2 and see if I can replicate the problem.

I'm beginning to think somethign got changed on the server.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Server info

OS Version: Linux version 2.4.20-28.8 (bhcompile@daffy.perf.redhat.com) (gcc
version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7
proftpd-1.2.5rc1-1
proftpd-standalone-1.2.5rc1-1


I am not kinda bothered by the fact that they are using a release candidate(rc1-1) for the FTP server.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
That may be.  Remember that pre-SP2 includes the Windows firewall, it just isn't enabled by default, so you could have the same problem with a pre-SP2 WinXP machine that has the firewall enabled.  If you can, try to connect from a non-XP machine (like Win2k, still my favorite).  If the problem exists with different clients on different machines with different OS's, it's more likely a server problem than a client problem.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
I've conencted myself from a Win 2000 system, had someone else connect with a win XP(non-sp2) system.

We had turned off the firewall on the 2nd XP system on his network.
Will see what I can do tonight.


0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
<<I am not kinda bothered by the fact that they are using a release candidate(rc1-1) for the FTP server.>> Should read..
I am kinda bothered by the fact that they are using a release candidate(rc1-1) for the FTP server.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
FWIW, I saw articles where users with other software firewalls (such as ZoneAlarm, etc.) would see the same error as you have.   I believe you when you say that the firewall was off -- but I just figured I'd mention that in case it sparks some ideas by someone.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
<< I've conencted myself from a Win 2000 system, had someone else connect with a win XP(non-sp2) system.
We had turned off the firewall on the 2nd XP system on his network.
Will see what I can do tonight.>>
Post back with the results.  I'll be interested to see how it goes.  It's starting to look more like a server problem, though, you're right.

I'm not as well-versed in that setup as periwinkle is.  Perhaps he'll have some relevant observations about potential server problems.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
Speak of the devil . . . not that periwinkle is the devil  . . .

Good point about ZoneAlarm (et al.).  I've had some interesting conflicts with ZA at times.  Are you running anything like that on any of the test machines?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Both his computers on his network run zone alarm but I had him disable them, I also made sure he had the XP firewall disabled and I put him on DMZ on the router.

and yet those issues still came up.

Its screwey.. its like his network doesn't get along with that server.

Its the damndest that this is the only FTP server that this happens to from his network.

Tonight I'm gonna try from my network, gonna lock my firewall up tight.. and will install zonealarm also, hopefully I can recreate the problem.
If not.. I think I'm gonna go insane.
will keep you guys posted.

Thanks very much for the feed back.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
Strange one for sure.

Off topic - you may want to mention to him that running XP firewall and ZoneAlarm at the same time is generally not a good idea.  It doesn't double your protection, just leads to conflicts.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
At home and tried to replicate the problem...
I have locked down my firewall.. turned off UPNP and still was able to transfer

I turned on microsoft firewall was still able to transfer
I installed zone alarm.. default settings and was still able to transfer

So I can't replicate the problem.

so I'm guessing this leaves us with
1)His network has a major issue with how its configured that doesn't allow data to flow properly to this one server for some strange reason.

2)Some configuration with this serve conflicts with his network/router

3)perhaps the servers MTU is too high for the router..I'm having them look into that.

4)Issue with the router

Tomorrow I check his Computers network configurations VIA remote access.

0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Actually he wasn't aware that XP had turned the firewall back on..he originally had it turned off then he upgraded to SP2.

He would rather not use the XP firewall..and we have disabled that.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Blckknight - sounds like you have a good approach - I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.  Check his internet connection - does he get to the internet through another computer that might have the SP2 problem?
0
 
humeniukCommented:
I agree.  It sounds like you're looking in the right places.  If you can narrow down exactly which computers demonstrate the problem and which ones don't, that might give a hint.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
The computers connect directly through a router.
His main computyer is connected by patch cord to the router, the other computer has a wireless connection.

0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Does the router have a built in firewall?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Yes it does.

But I've disabled all filtering on it and as mentioned above put him on DMZ on the router which (technically)should eliminate the issue being firewall related.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Yep - I'm grasping at straws along with you....
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
I shall blame it on the Gnomes..somehow they are trying to make a profit off of thsi I'm sure. <_<

Well will let you all know whats up after I can check his network settings.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
(darn those Gnomes!)

Good luck - let us know how you are making out.
0
 
humeniukCommented:
Yes, that should rule out a firewall problem.  Perhaps you should post this in the Gnomes TA at http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/Gnomes/
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
I'm looking at zone alarm and noticed somethign pecuilar on incoming data tht it blocked..

source IP: 192.168.1.1:1054   Destnation IP: 192.168.1.100:2869
source IP: 192.168.1.1:1055   Destnation IP: 192.168.1.100:2869
source IP: 192.168.1.1:1056   Destnation IP: 192.168.1.100:2869
source IP: 192.168.1.1:1057   Destnation IP: 192.168.1.100:2869

and it continues like that..
why are the ports incrimenting like that???
192.168.1.1 is his router.. and .100 is his computer.

I managed to resolve partially one problem..I reduced the QoS(Maybe I should remove this completely?) packets bandwidth reserve to 0% and that upped the speed but the connections to eventually die out.

I tried him without a router and the files seem to be timing out still..but I also discovered he had Cute ftp to make 35 connections at once, his host only handles a max of 10 users at once.
But I only discovered this after we reconnected the router, so I'm having him try again later disconnecting the router.and trying it direct..with zone alarm off.

I seriously am not sure what to think..could it be his host??
He has a cable internet connection.
This is happening only to 1 server.. and from what I can tell noone else is having issues conencting to this server..
what is up with this?!

Sorry if anyone this is confusing my minds a lil scrambled rigth now from trying to resolve this over the phone for the past hour.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
The blocked items it sounds like something is coming into his router that is trying to access his port 2869, but that ZoneAlarm is blocking, as that isn't a standard or open port.

Does his host have a proxy server?

Darn those gnomes!

0
 
humeniukCommented:
IS that ZoneAlarm on the server?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
No the Zonealarm is only on the home computer

The server is a professional webhosting company which he resells space from and he manages the sites and uploads the files etc..
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Last night it hit me to try and do a traceroute from his computer to the server.
I'm also going to be dropping the MTU on his computer to a much lower number.
Hope one of those reveal something.

his provider is Comcast, do they have any connection issues?

0
 
humeniukCommented:
No problems that I know of with Comcast.  There is differing info about whether Comcast blocks certain ports, but that wouldn't affect an FTP client.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Ok playing with his MTU now
peculiar reaction going on..
I'm doing the "ping (ip addy) -f -l (mtu size)"
and seeing when packets fragment..

we are down to 1410 and are still getting "packet needs to be fragmented but DF set"
I drop it to 1400 and the packets go through.

Also we are steadily getting 25% to 75% packet loss to certain servers.

I ping yahoo and get no packet loss.
I ping the server we are trying to ftp to an getting packet loss steadily everytime. 25%-75%


when doing a tracert he reaches the serer in 20 hops, I reach the server in 15 yet I'm further away from the server.

Possibly the Modem?
something with the host?

why consistant packet loss?
any idea?
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
From the server, can you ping/traceroute his machine?  Sometimes, the problem is actually on the return route...
0
 
humeniukCommented:
In this case, that would make sense (getting lost on the return trip).  Is the problem still happening with some clients and not with others?
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
I will contact the people and ask them to try doign a ping and/or tracert to his IP.
thankfully he has a static IP.

I'm thinking I am narrowing down the problem.

This still only happens on 1 server..no actually sorry one IP block range.

155.212.8.100 is his server.(its a public server so no worry about having the IP out there)
we discovered 155.212.17.1 and get the same high packet loss rate when using the above ping method.

from my computer if I ping his server with
ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1470
I get consistent request time out
if I drop it to
ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1460

it actually flows through no problem but this is only from me.

on his end he gets the packet loss. gah
will contact the server and inform you guys on whats happening.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Hmmm - I pinged from my server to see what would happen (note that I clipped a very long line of dots to prevent a very long line in experts-exchange.com, I hit 'control c' to stop the ping after a random period of time,  and xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is my IP address):

ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1470
PING 155.212.8.100 (155.212.8.100) from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : 56(84) bytes of data.
................................................................................................ (clipped for brevity)
Warning: no SO_RCVTIMEO support, falling back to poll
....................
--- 155.212.8.100 ping statistics ---
39398 packets transmitted, 37908 packets received, 3% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 52.533/56.439/246.291/10.155 ms

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the other packet size (not repeating all the dots):

ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1460
PING 155.212.8.100 (155.212.8.100) from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: 56(84) bytes of data.
............................................................................................... (clipped for brevity)
Warning: no SO_RCVTIMEO support, falling back to poll
...............
--- 155.212.8.100 ping statistics ---
98942 packets transmitted, 97467 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 52.530/11.477/97.961/54.507 ms
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
the above was a Linux server.

I then attempted from my Windows machine:

> ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1470

Pinging 155.212.8.100 with 1470 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 155.212.8.100:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum =  0ms, Average =  0ms

and

>ping 155.212.8.100 -f -l 1460

Pinging 155.212.8.100 with 1460 bytes of data:

Reply from 155.212.8.100: bytes=1460 time=70ms TTL=53
Reply from 155.212.8.100: bytes=1460 time=50ms TTL=53
Reply from 155.212.8.100: bytes=1460 time=50ms TTL=53
Reply from 155.212.8.100: bytes=1460 time=50ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 155.212.8.100:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 50ms, Maximum =  70ms, Average =  55ms
0
 
humeniukConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Same result here, 1470 vs. 1460.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
Now, I should mention that my windows machine is a Win2k professional machine, not an XP machine, but it also runs ZoneAlarm.

I did a quick google, and I think I found out WHY packets of greater than 1460 fail;  the default MSS (Maximum Segment Size) is the MTU (Maximum Segment Unit, which is by default 1500) minus 40 = 1460.  The following articles discuss tweaking registry settings for Win2k and WinXP, and both explain this:

http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm
http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157

So, I think that the packet size failure is probably going to be a bit of a red herring.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Thank you Periwinkle on the 1460 vs 1470 issue. Makes sense.

and yes the route is different, I can reach it in a matter of 15 hops from ehre at my office and from home.
He reaches it in 20 hops.
 I'm located in montreal Quebec, hes in New hamsphire(sp?)
Some of the hops take him through level3 servers.

I have to run for now but will post a screen shot of his traceroute and mine later on.
Thank you.
0
 
blckknightAuthor Commented:
Well its finally resolved and the support ticket is closed.

After some more indepth analysing and charting of the data loss we contacted his provider again and began sending them logs and charts.

They finally gave in and began checking their hard ware. On friday my client noticed one of their truck down the street working on a repeater they have located there, and since then hes been running flawlessly.

So cause of this issue was not my client nor his server, it was his provider and a bad piece of hardware.

Strange that it surfaced how it did but its resolved now.

Thank you all for your support and will split the points among you.
0
 
periwinkleCommented:
AH!  Now that makes sense - I'm glad you were able to get it resolved - that was a unique one!  
0
 
humeniukCommented:
I'm glad to hear that it is resolved.  It was a strange case, to be sure.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.