Re: Question for Microsoft - IIS WebServer

What you're really asking is what component dependencies can you purposely
not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still retain some specific
functionality.

I don't have the answer to that because that scenario wasn't tested. Some
people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies in a given
configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot more testing to ensure
you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality. Perhaps someone else
in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....

Sorry.
--
Andy

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
=====================================================

"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my image. However by just
> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of space in my image for
> additional 137 components. Is there a list of CRITICAL components that I
> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked this question before
> but there is not much help from the group as the dependency list is really
> huge.
>
> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I have done.
>
>
>
>

yup, that's one way of doing it. However, I was thinking of something else.
When the XP team created the IIS webserver for XP, they would have a list of
dependencies required for IIS to run on XP. This would include critical,
medium and non-critical components.So during development this is the list
they used. Therefore when the XPe team got started, I suppose they would
have used the same list of dependencies as well to componentize IIS. Now if
I'm right, working from such a list would certainly cut down on the time
used when using the method described by Heidi.Of course, there might be
others out there who are equally as deperate as me as to attempt to cut down
the list of dependencies one by one. Anyone else ?

"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache, but I
> did spend a considerable amount of time trying to get my
> image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages, but
> my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> a .dll it requires isn't there.
> You may find a better way - and if you do, please post it -
> but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to components
> are hiding.
> Create a working build with resolved dependencies, without
> worrying about the image size.
> Print out a list of the components included - the log file
> is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a table
> so I could sort it by component size.
> Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> Pick a few big components which you think you probably
> don't need and mark them on your list, then remove them
> from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> Check your build works still, and if it does, save under a
> new revision number and cross off those components. Pick a
> few more.
> If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision and
> remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should be
> left with a much smaller build.
> Remember that if all you need in a component is a couple
> of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest of it
> in component designer, and that not including the help
> files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >What you're really asking is what component dependencies
> can you purposely
> >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still
> retain some specific
> >functionality.
> >
> >I don't have the answer to that because that scenario
> wasn't tested. Some
> >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies in a
> given
> >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot more
> testing to ensure
> >you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality.
> Perhaps someone else
> >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> >
> >Sorry.
> >--
> >Andy
> >
> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no
> >rights.
> >=====================================================
> >
> >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my image.
> However by just
> >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of space
> in my image for
> >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of CRITICAL
> components that I
> >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked
> this question before
> >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> dependency list is really
> >> huge.
> >>
> >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I have
> done.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

i don't think that is the issue here since any other stuff i drag in will
incur another dependency but that is related to the component i drag in only
.... both might share the same dependencies or may not even have anything in
common ... i thought the idea of components in XPe is flexible enough to
really allow me to do just that, or is it limited to smaller set of
components only ? Heidi, the problem you described is just what i want to
avoid since i did not develop IIS and would not really know what to remove
without causing it to fail or to have a regression failure as mentioned by
Andy. Rather than waste time trying around poking around the components,
that is the reason i'm coming to the newsgroup and Microsoft for any help in
doing so.

"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0a2a01c36c8b$afb22ed0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> I think the issue - as stated by Andy - is that you don't
> really know *exactly* what you need out of what's pulled
> in without testing it, because MS aren't going to know
> exactly which features you need in a component - the
> dependencies listed are what's needed to make everything
> work.
> I removed some things which netsh.exe wants, and removing
> them causes error messages - but ones which I can ignore
> as they aren't alert boxes, and don't stop my image doing
> what I want.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >yup, that's one way of doing it. However, I was thinking
> of something else.
> >When the XP team created the IIS webserver for XP, they
> would have a list of
> >dependencies required for IIS to run on XP. This would
> include critical,
> >medium and non-critical components.So during development
> this is the list
> >they used. Therefore when the XPe team got started, I
> suppose they would
> >have used the same list of dependencies as well to
> componentize IIS. Now if
> >I'm right, working from such a list would certainly cut
> down on the time
> >used when using the method described by Heidi.Of course,
> there might be
> >others out there who are equally as deperate as me as to
> attempt to cut down
> >the list of dependencies one by one. Anyone else ?
> >
> >"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> >> I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache, but
> I
> >> did spend a considerable amount of time trying to get my
> >> image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages,
> but
> >> my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> >> blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> >> a .dll it requires isn't there.
> >> You may find a better way - and if you do, please post
> it -
> >> but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> >> minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to components
> >> are hiding.
> >> Create a working build with resolved dependencies,
> without
> >> worrying about the image size.
> >> Print out a list of the components included - the log
> file
> >> is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a
> table
> >> so I could sort it by component size.
> >> Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> >> Pick a few big components which you think you probably
> >> don't need and mark them on your list, then remove them
> >> from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> >> Check your build works still, and if it does, save
> under a
> >> new revision number and cross off those components.
> Pick a
> >> few more.
> >> If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision
> and
> >> remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> >> Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> >> everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should be
> >> left with a much smaller build.
> >> Remember that if all you need in a component is a couple
> >> of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest of
> it
> >> in component designer, and that not including the help
> >> files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >What you're really asking is what component
> dependencies
> >> can you purposely
> >> >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still
> >> retain some specific
> >> >functionality.
> >> >
> >> >I don't have the answer to that because that scenario
> >> wasn't tested. Some
> >> >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies
> in a
> >> given
> >> >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot
> more
> >> testing to ensure
> >> >you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality.
> >> Perhaps someone else
> >> >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> >> >
> >> >Sorry.
> >> >--
> >> >Andy
> >> >
> >> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >> confers no
> >> >rights.
> >> >=====================================================
> >> >
> >> >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my
> image.
> >> However by just
> >> >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> >> >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of
> space
> >> in my image for
> >> >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of
> CRITICAL
> >> components that I
> >> >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked
> >> this question before
> >> >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> >> dependency list is really
> >> >> huge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I
> have
> >> done.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >

you are absolutely right but in certain components perhaps all it needs is
just a function in another dll and that got the other dll dragged in and
another and another ... hmmnnn ... Any other feedback from Microsoft experts
?

"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:091101c36d42$6b05d7c0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> I beg to differ. MS set up the dependencies in such a way
> that a component should depend on the components which it
> needs to perform *all* its functions. If you don't *need*
> all those functions, then you don't need all the
> components. Finding out which components you don't need is
> going to be largely a case of trial and error. Look at how
> many files we're dealing with, would you really expect
> someone to know exactly what every one does and what will
> work fine without it? It's a phenomenal amount of
> information, and in any case, a lot of the time whether
> something works without one component will depend on what
> *other* components are installed - there is a certain
> amount of duplication of files.
> Any system like this, whether all the dependencies are
> resolved or not, is going to need to be extensively tested
> once built to make sure it works as expected.
> I've not had any problems with my system that has 33
> unresolved dependencies, but removing any one of the other
> components in there would cause problems, and I spent a
> lot of time trimming out that 300MB of unneccessary
> components.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >i don't think that is the issue here since any other
> stuff i drag in will
> >incur another dependency but that is related to the
> component i drag in only
> >.... both might share the same dependencies or may not
> even have anything in
> >common ... i thought the idea of components in XPe is
> flexible enough to
> >really allow me to do just that, or is it limited to
> smaller set of
> >components only ? Heidi, the problem you described is
> just what i want to
> >avoid since i did not develop IIS and would not really
> know what to remove
> >without causing it to fail or to have a regression
> failure as mentioned by
> >Andy. Rather than waste time trying around poking around
> the components,
> >that is the reason i'm coming to the newsgroup and
> Microsoft for any help in
> >doing so.
> >
> >"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:0a2a01c36c8b$afb22ed0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> >> I think the issue - as stated by Andy - is that you
> don't
> >> really know *exactly* what you need out of what's pulled
> >> in without testing it, because MS aren't going to know
> >> exactly which features you need in a component - the
> >> dependencies listed are what's needed to make everything
> >> work.
> >> I removed some things which netsh.exe wants, and
> removing
> >> them causes error messages - but ones which I can ignore
> >> as they aren't alert boxes, and don't stop my image
> doing
> >> what I want.
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >yup, that's one way of doing it. However, I was
> thinking
> >> of something else.
> >> >When the XP team created the IIS webserver for XP, they
> >> would have a list of
> >> >dependencies required for IIS to run on XP. This would
> >> include critical,
> >> >medium and non-critical components.So during
> development
> >> this is the list
> >> >they used. Therefore when the XPe team got started, I
> >> suppose they would
> >> >have used the same list of dependencies as well to
> >> componentize IIS. Now if
> >> >I'm right, working from such a list would certainly cut
> >> down on the time
> >> >used when using the method described by Heidi.Of
> course,
> >> there might be
> >> >others out there who are equally as deperate as me as
> to
> >> attempt to cut down
> >> >the list of dependencies one by one. Anyone else ?
> >> >
> >> >"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> >> >> I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache,
> but
> >> I
> >> >> did spend a considerable amount of time trying to
> get my
> >> >> image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages,
> >> but
> >> >> my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> >> >> blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> >> >> a .dll it requires isn't there.
> >> >> You may find a better way - and if you do, please
> post
> >> it -
> >> >> but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> >> >> minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to
> components
> >> >> are hiding.
> >> >> Create a working build with resolved dependencies,
> >> without
> >> >> worrying about the image size.
> >> >> Print out a list of the components included - the log
> >> file
> >> >> is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a
> >> table
> >> >> so I could sort it by component size.
> >> >> Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> >> >> Pick a few big components which you think you
> probably
> >> >> don't need and mark them on your list, then remove
> them
> >> >> from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> >> >> Check your build works still, and if it does, save
> >> under a
> >> >> new revision number and cross off those components.
> >> Pick a
> >> >> few more.
> >> >> If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision
> >> and
> >> >> remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> >> >> Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> >> >> everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should
> be
> >> >> left with a much smaller build.
> >> >> Remember that if all you need in a component is a
> couple
> >> >> of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest
> of
> >> it
> >> >> in component designer, and that not including the
> help
> >> >> files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >> >What you're really asking is what component
> >> dependencies
> >> >> can you purposely
> >> >> >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet
> still
> >> >> retain some specific
> >> >> >functionality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't have the answer to that because that
> scenario
> >> >> wasn't tested. Some
> >> >> >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies
> >> in a
> >> >> given
> >> >> >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot
> >> more
> >> >> testing to ensure
> >> >> >you're *not* introducing a regression in
> functionality.
> >> >> Perhaps someone else
> >> >> >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sorry.
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >Andy
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >> and
> >> >> confers no
> >> >> >rights.
> >> >>
> >=====================================================
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my
> >> image.
> >> >> However by just
> >> >> >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> >> >> >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of
> >> space
> >> >> in my image for
> >> >> >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of
> >> CRITICAL
> >> >> components that I
> >> >> >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've
> asked
> >> >> this question before
> >> >> >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> >> >> dependency list is really
> >> >> >> huge.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I
> >> have
> >> >> done.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >.
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >

If I may make a suggestion on the method trimming down the size of the image
which may save you some time.. On Target Designer, you can go to 'View',
click on 'Resources' and it will show you all the files and registry data
associated with each component. With all the file and registry data for all
the components you can go boot up the built image and delete what you don't
think is necessary (especially help files and things that were used to set
up your image and no longer need) and try out the functionality right then
and there without having to rebuild the image each time you make a change.
Make use of the recycling bin incase you do need the files. Keep track of
all the files you delete as you can automate this afterwards.

You may have to invest some time in gathering all the resources for each
component but I think it will save you a lot more time than having to
rebuild the image over and over again. You can think of creative ways to
save time on gathering the resource data and organize them to be useful
later. I'm sure there are also other ways to speed up trimming down the
image.

"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache, but I
> did spend a considerable amount of time trying to get my
> image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages, but
> my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> a .dll it requires isn't there.
> You may find a better way - and if you do, please post it -
> but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to components
> are hiding.
> Create a working build with resolved dependencies, without
> worrying about the image size.
> Print out a list of the components included - the log file
> is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a table
> so I could sort it by component size.
> Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> Pick a few big components which you think you probably
> don't need and mark them on your list, then remove them
> from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> Check your build works still, and if it does, save under a
> new revision number and cross off those components. Pick a
> few more.
> If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision and
> remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should be
> left with a much smaller build.
> Remember that if all you need in a component is a couple
> of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest of it
> in component designer, and that not including the help
> files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >What you're really asking is what component dependencies
> can you purposely
> >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still
> retain some specific
> >functionality.
> >
> >I don't have the answer to that because that scenario
> wasn't tested. Some
> >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies in a
> given
> >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot more
> testing to ensure
> >you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality.
> Perhaps someone else
> >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> >
> >Sorry.
> >--
> >Andy
> >
> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no
> >rights.
> >=====================================================
> >
> >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my image.
> However by just
> >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of space
> in my image for
> >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of CRITICAL
> components that I
> >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked
> this question before
> >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> dependency list is really
> >> huge.
> >>
> >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I have
> done.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Absolutely smart.

Anna

"Richard" <rchen@analyzer.com> wrote in message news:eylQQtXbDHA.2344@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I may make a suggestion on the method trimming down the size of the image
> which may save you some time.. On Target Designer, you can go to 'View',
> click on 'Resources' and it will show you all the files and registry data
> associated with each component. With all the file and registry data for all
> the components you can go boot up the built image and delete what you don't
> think is necessary (especially help files and things that were used to set
> up your image and no longer need) and try out the functionality right then
> and there without having to rebuild the image each time you make a change.
> Make use of the recycling bin incase you do need the files. Keep track of
> all the files you delete as you can automate this afterwards.
>
> You may have to invest some time in gathering all the resources for each
> component but I think it will save you a lot more time than having to
> rebuild the image over and over again. You can think of creative ways to
> save time on gathering the resource data and organize them to be useful
> later. I'm sure there are also other ways to speed up trimming down the
> image.
>
> "Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> > I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache, but I
> > did spend a considerable amount of time trying to get my
> > image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages, but
> > my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> > blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> > a .dll it requires isn't there.
> > You may find a better way - and if you do, please post it -
> > but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> > minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to components
> > are hiding.
> > Create a working build with resolved dependencies, without
> > worrying about the image size.
> > Print out a list of the components included - the log file
> > is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a table
> > so I could sort it by component size.
> > Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> > Pick a few big components which you think you probably
> > don't need and mark them on your list, then remove them
> > from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> > Check your build works still, and if it does, save under a
> > new revision number and cross off those components. Pick a
> > few more.
> > If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision and
> > remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> > Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> > everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should be
> > left with a much smaller build.
> > Remember that if all you need in a component is a couple
> > of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest of it
> > in component designer, and that not including the help
> > files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >What you're really asking is what component dependencies
> > can you purposely
> > >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still
> > retain some specific
> > >functionality.
> > >
> > >I don't have the answer to that because that scenario
> > wasn't tested. Some
> > >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies in a
> > given
> > >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot more
> > testing to ensure
> > >you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality.
> > Perhaps someone else
> > >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> > >
> > >Sorry.
> > >--
> > >Andy
> > >
> > >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> > confers no
> > >rights.
> > >=====================================================
> > >
> > >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> > >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my image.
> > However by just
> > >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> > >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of space
> > in my image for
> > >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of CRITICAL
> > components that I
> > >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked
> > this question before
> > >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> > dependency list is really
> > >> huge.
> > >>
> > >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I have
> > done.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
>

Thanks for all your feedbacks.That is what i intend to do given the fact
that there it is better than rebuilding the image and there is no better
solution.

"Heidi Linda" <hll@Bts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:084b01c36d7d$f595f150$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> Yep, I see how that could work, but I started trimming the
> thing pre-SP1... plus most of the stuff I was having
> problems with was stuff happening in FBA, and which didn't
> need the files *after* that.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >If I may make a suggestion on the method trimming down
> the size of the image
> >which may save you some time.. On Target Designer, you
> can go to 'View',
> >click on 'Resources' and it will show you all the files
> and registry data
> >associated with each component. With all the file and
> registry data for all
> >the components you can go boot up the built image and
> delete what you don't
> >think is necessary (especially help files and things that
> were used to set
> >up your image and no longer need) and try out the
> functionality right then
> >and there without having to rebuild the image each time
> you make a change.
> >Make use of the recycling bin incase you do need the
> files. Keep track of
> >all the files you delete as you can automate this
> afterwards.
> >
> >You may have to invest some time in gathering all the
> resources for each
> >component but I think it will save you a lot more time
> than having to
> >rebuild the image over and over again. You can think of
> creative ways to
> >save time on gathering the resource data and organize
> them to be useful
> >later. I'm sure there are also other ways to speed up
> trimming down the
> >image.
> >
> >"Heidi Linda" <hll@bts.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:036901c36c7c$8244b030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> >> I've not tested this myself, as I went with Apache, but
> I
> >> did spend a considerable amount of time trying to get my
> >> image down to a workable size. This *does* take ages,
> but
> >> my image is now so streamlined that even without the
> >> blaster patch it's immune - blaster can't run because
> >> a .dll it requires isn't there.
> >> You may find a better way - and if you do, please post
> it -
> >> but this is how I did it. I recommend setting your
> >> minvisibility to 1 in the registry so that to components
> >> are hiding.
> >> Create a working build with resolved dependencies,
> without
> >> worrying about the image size.
> >> Print out a list of the components included - the log
> file
> >> is easily cannibalised for this. I made mine into a
> table
> >> so I could sort it by component size.
> >> Turn off auto-resolve dependencies.
> >> Pick a few big components which you think you probably
> >> don't need and mark them on your list, then remove them
> >> from your build. Don't resolve the dependencies.
> >> Check your build works still, and if it does, save
> under a
> >> new revision number and cross off those components.
> Pick a
> >> few more.
> >> If it doesn't work, go back to your previous revision
> and
> >> remove less of the components, maybe just one or two.
> >> Lather, rince, repeat until you've tried removing
> >> everything you don't *know* is necessary. You should be
> >> left with a much smaller build.
> >> Remember that if all you need in a component is a couple
> >> of files or registry keys, you can disable the rest of
> it
> >> in component designer, and that not including the help
> >> files can reduce your image quite a bit.
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >What you're really asking is what component
> dependencies
> >> can you purposely
> >> >not satisfy in order to lower your footprint yet still
> >> retain some specific
> >> >functionality.
> >> >
> >> >I don't have the answer to that because that scenario
> >> wasn't tested. Some
> >> >people do choose not to satisfy all the dependencies
> in a
> >> given
> >> >configuration, but the burden is on you to do a lot
> more
> >> testing to ensure
> >> >you're *not* introducing a regression in functionality.
> >> Perhaps someone else
> >> >in the newsgroup has tested this scenario....
> >> >
> >> >Sorry.
> >> >--
> >> >Andy
> >> >
> >> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >> confers no
> >> >rights.
> >> >=====================================================
> >> >
> >> >"Chew Lek Wah" <chew@ghl.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:O7YlvEFbDHA.3360@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> I would like to have IIS Webserver running in my
> image.
> >> However by just
> >> >> adding IIS Common Libraries will incur
> >> >> 73379 KB / 101916 KB (compressed/uncompresed) of
> space
> >> in my image for
> >> >> additional 137 components. Is there a list of
> CRITICAL
> >> components that I
> >> >> must have to run IIS (for ASP webpages) ? I've asked
> >> this question before
> >> >> but there is not much help from the group as the
> >> dependency list is really
> >> >> huge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Attached is the list of the footprint estimation I
> have
> >> done.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >