|
Thank you for the replies. Unfortunately my application is a console application. From MSDN help on the above event it seemed "Console applications do not raise the SessionEnding event".
Best Regards, Renuka
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
the simple solution is to turn your app into a Windows application then.
the main form could be hidden, or if some input/output is necessary a console could
be simulated on the form.
the same MSDN page however also hints at another approach: shutdown/restart will
result in a WM_QUERYENDSESSION message; so if you manage to set up a message pump
you can still catch these.
I have not done this, nor do I know any details. If I really needed this, I would
try with a separate thread, probably using Application.Run, and a hidden form, and
possibly an overridden WndProc.
I trust going for the Windows app is the easier way !
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Thank you for the reply. But by design I chose the process to be a console exe.
Thanks again & Best Regards, Renuka
|
|
|
|
|
Probably your best bet is to define a special command-line option and put this in your Startup shortcut or Run registry key. Otherwise some way of measuring the system uptime is probably necessary.
GetTickCount is supposed to return the number of milliseconds since the system started, but I believe there are options somewhere to force the initial count to be a large number, so that counter rollover happens fairly soon after system startup, so this may not be reliable. If using the .NET Framework, the equivalent is System.Environment.TickCount.
GetSystemTimes tells you how much clock time has been spent idle, running kernel-mode code and running user-mode code. The sum of these three should be the amount of time the system has been running for.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the kind response. I kept my application under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run registry key.
But still I'm under the impression that process should compare its startup time with the system up time to know whether the present startup is the first startup right after windows reboot.
Does this make sense?
I felt that it was necessary because the console application can be killed once started via CTRL+C, CTRL+BREAK, TaskManager-> EndTask. Under such scenarios in the next iterations of process startup it is not necessary for the process to do the special initialization done during the very frist startup right after machine reboot.
Thanks again & Best Regards, Renuka
|
|
|
|
|
chervu wrote: But still I'm under the impression that process should compare its startup time with the system up time to know whether the present startup is the first startup right after windows reboot.
This will not tell you if its first start or not. Depending on how fast or slow the system does initialization of things before it gets to the Run key, this time can be very variable.
Better to log within your initialization when the proram was started. When your process starts compare the entry to the latest eventlog entry 6009, which tells you the time of the last restart of the system. If the eventlog entry is newer than what you logged last time, it means its the first start. Otherwise its not the first.
- NathCorp
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going insane. I have a Win XP Pro development machine that will not find any files when I search for them. FWIW, indexing is off on the hard drive. I don't care about performance, as I only search short trees of files.
So, I go to the top of a tree, hit search, enter in a filename that I know is in the subdirectories, press search. no results.
This has to be something really stupid. msdn searches yielded nothing... ideas?
Charlie Gilley
Will program for food...
Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied.
Overheard in a cubicle: "A project is just a bug under development."
Seeking to rise above the intelligence of a one eared rabbit...
Caught in a vortex of weirdness...
|
|
|
|
|
Click Change Preferences, Change files and folders search behaviour, Advanced, then OK. Expand More Advanced Options and change Type of File to (All Files and Folders). Tick 'Search system folders', 'Search hidden files and folders' and 'Search subfolders'. Ensure the options under When Was It Modified? and What Size Is It? are set to 'Don't Remember'.
While in the Change Preferences box I click 'Without An Animated Screen Character' too.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote: 'Without An Animated Screen Character'
Hehe your not the only one 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote: 'Without An Animated Screen Character'
That ("Rover") actually does not take much resources. The search algorithm itself is slower.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I know. That's not why I turn it off. I turn it off because it's annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
It is slow also and none of the applications would get CPU slice. I would prefer GDC (Google Desktop Search).
|
|
|
|
|
Well, so far, no joy. I went through all of the settings to see if they matched up, and they did. I don't need a super efficient search. I know better than to search "C:\". My typical use is to start at the top of a source tree and see if I can locate a header file.
This is just weird.
Charlie Gilley
Will program for food...
Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied.
Overheard in a cubicle: "A project is just a bug under development."
Seeking to rise above the intelligence of a one eared rabbit...
Caught in a vortex of weirdness...
|
|
|
|
|
I have developed a server and client application for lan monitoring.The problem is that I have to change the permissions of of my client application for all users, but changing permissions in all the computers is hectic task(when we have a large no. of computers connected to server). so I want to cahnge permissions from server only without going to all computers.
Is there any application to do this.
please help urgently
|
|
|
|
|
rahul_31366 wrote: please help urgently
originSH has already told you what influence this has, stil, you don't get it. OK.
I know the answer, but I certainly won't tell you.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
"If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
Hi - trying to check connectivity with tracert command
(1) from here to pdir.bloomberg.net
C:\>tracert pdir.bloomberg.net
Tracing route to pdir.bloomberg.net [206.156.53.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
<br />
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10.20.43.250<br />
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms shk1-ge-1-13.macbank [10.20.1.77]<br />
3 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms 10.20.1.26<br />
4 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 146.199.53.73<br />
5 154 ms 154 ms 155 ms 146.199.45.105<br />
6 160 ms 156 ms 155 ms 146.199.45.106<br />
7 157 ms 158 ms 157 ms msm301--pchan1-159.macbank [10.129.20.5]<br />
8 156 ms 156 ms 156 ms msfc301--Gi5-1.macbank [10.130.17.53]<br />
9 157 ms 157 ms 164 ms ssr1-te-8-1.macbank [10.130.17.61]<br />
10 157 ms 157 ms 156 ms rsrz1--gigeth-0-0.macbank [10.137.129.134]<br />
11 * * * Request timed out.<br />
12 * * * Request timed out.<br />
13 * * * Request timed out.<br />
14 * * * Request timed out.<br />
15 * * * Request timed out.<br />
16 * * * Request timed out.<br />
17 * * * Request timed out.<br />
18 * * * Request timed out.
What's with the timed out?
(2) how do I check connectivity to a subnet:
<br />
208.134.161.0 [255.255.255.0]
Thanks very much!
|
|
|
|
|
(1) That means that tracert stopped waiting on a reponse by that node because it took too long.
(2) Use Ping. ICMP Type 3 Code 0 is for "Network unreachable". You might get that reply from a chatty (not stealthy) router which realized it has no port to send your ping request to.
However, these computers could be anywhere, they don't have to be in the same room physically, so "checking for subnet connectivity" is not something you usually do.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
"If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
Like the other poster said, there are 3 possibilities.
1. The 11th hop is down for some reason.
2. The 11th hop takes too long to respond, where TRACERT times out and give up waiting for a response.
3. The 11th hop is configured to ignore/drop/misroute ICMP ECHO requests.
|
|
|
|
|
30th hop total - what does it suggest? max depends on routing protocol? 30 seems a big number...?
<br />
C:\>tracert pdir.bloomberg.net<br />
<br />
Tracing route to pdir.bloomberg.net [206.156.53.131]<br />
over a maximum of 30 hops:<br />
<br />
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10.20.43.250<br />
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms shk1-ge-1-13.macbank [10.20.1.77]<br />
3 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms 10.20.1.26<br />
4 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 146.199.53.73<br />
5 154 ms 159 ms 155 ms 146.199.45.105<br />
6 157 ms 157 ms 156 ms 146.199.45.106<br />
7 157 ms 156 ms 156 ms msm301--pchan1-159.macbank [10.129.20.5]<br />
8 158 ms 156 ms 155 ms msfc301--Gi5-1.macbank [10.130.17.53]<br />
9 157 ms 158 ms 156 ms ssr1-te-8-1.macbank [10.130.17.61]<br />
10 160 ms 157 ms 158 ms rsrz1--gigeth-0-0.macbank [10.137.129.134]<br />
11 * * * Request timed out.<br />
12 * * * Request timed out.<br />
13 * * * Request timed out.<br />
14 * * * Request timed out.<br />
15 * * * Request timed out.<br />
16 * * * Request timed out.<br />
17 * * * Request timed out.<br />
18 * * * Request timed out.<br />
19 * * * Request timed out.<br />
20 * * * Request timed out.<br />
21 * * * Request timed out.<br />
22 * * * Request timed out.<br />
23 * * * Request timed out.<br />
24 * * * Request timed out.<br />
25 * * * Request timed out.<br />
26 * * * Request timed out.<br />
27 * * * Request timed out.<br />
28 * * * Request timed out.<br />
29 * * * Request timed out.<br />
30 * * * Request timed out.<br />
<br />
Trace complete.<br />
<br />
|
|
|
|
|
devvvy wrote: Is it possible for me to get timeout on 11th hop, then some response say 115ms from 12th hop, then timeout again on 13th hop?
Oh yeah it is. This happens, usually, because of a router configuration problem, but can also be caused by a bad link between the 11th and 12th hop. The 11th hop can time out and you get a response back from the 12th hop, probably because the reply packet had another path back to your machine.
When you send a ping packet down a route, there is NOTHING that says the reply packet has to take the same route back! The replys can take take route available to get back to your machine.
devvvy wrote: 30th hop total - what does it suggest? max depends on routing protocol? 30 seems a big number...?
By default, TraceRoute will only go the first 30 hops. There is no way for it to know how many hops are actually in the path to the destination, so in the event of a Timeout, TraceRoute just assumes that A hop failed. It has no way of knowing WHICH hop failed, or how many hops are required to reach the destination machine.
|
|
|
|
|
Option 3 is highly likely in the modern internet. No sense allowing attackers to know that you're there. It's amazing anything responds to 'trace route' packets nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
dear friends,
can any one of you tell me what is diff b/w evalauation ver RC1 and license
ver of Windows vista.
thanks and regards
prashant
|
|
|
|
|
Y! T LV o WV i mm soph 'n gnrly m stb! A, u mb using pir8 ver!
|
|
|
|
|
The RC1 (Release Candidate 1) version was coded to expire on June 1, 2007. It won't run anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
I already told him.
.
.
.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
"If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
