svchost.exe planned?
Moderator: Moderator Team
svchost.exe planned?
I just tried out 0.3.6, and watched the Task Manager, and I noticed the DHCP service, the PnP service and some other service I don't remember are running in their own process. Is a migration to something like svchost.exe planned, or are you planning to adopt the Unix-ish way of everything-has-it's-own-process?
-
- Developer
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:23 pm
Re: svchost.exe planned?
svchost is already partially implemented in ReactOS
Re: svchost.exe planned?
is there any advantage of sticking that tight to windows-architekture?
In my opinion it would make more sense to build a stable OS with a windows-compatible api.
For the administrators it's better to have a lot of little processes, which can be restarted independently.
regards
Tobias
In my opinion it would make more sense to build a stable OS with a windows-compatible api.
For the administrators it's better to have a lot of little processes, which can be restarted independently.
regards
Tobias
Re: svchost.exe planned?
In order to achieve compatibility, we have to stick closely to the design. Doing otherwise would just make more work.
Re: svchost.exe planned?
Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.Twardon wrote:is there any advantage of sticking that tight to windows-architekture?
In my opinion it would make more sense to build a stable OS with a windows-compatible api.
For the administrators it's better to have a lot of little processes, which can be restarted independently.
regards
Tobias
-
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 pm
Re: svchost.exe planned?
Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
It is important to have auto-restarting processes for certain things because of that. Killing explorer.exe is a fancy way to refresh the shell or bring up the shut-down options, usually.
Also, sometimes processes have more than one instance of themselves. For example, svchost.
Re: svchost.exe planned?
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, you're just saying what has already been said.Iyeru wrote:Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
It is important to have auto-restarting processes for certain things because of that. Killing explorer.exe is a fancy way to refresh the shell or bring up the shut-down options, usually.
In Windows NT, Explorer.exe is a protected process, meaning it will (should) be automatically restarted if it crashes or is terminated.
Services can be configured individually using the Services management console in what should be done if the service is terminated; automatically restart, after X crashes do something else, like run a command.
Well yeah, obviously svchost is the host process for services. You should restart individual services through the Services management console, not through Task Manager (only as a last resort. If you don't know which instance of svchost.exe to kill, you can find out with Process Explorer which PID belongs to which executable)Iyeru wrote: Also, sometimes processes have more than one instance of themselves. For example, svchost.
So when svchost is fully implemented in ReactOS there will be no other required features.
Re: svchost.exe planned?
OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.Iyeru wrote:Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
Secondly, Windows 98 and 95 (and ME) did not have any Windows Services support whatsoever. The Services architecture was implemented exclusively in Windows NT and the NT-based OS's that followed.
Jon
-
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 pm
Re: svchost.exe planned?
I saw it in WinXP as a service plenty of times.stimpy77 wrote:OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.
this is what happens when you shut down explorer.exe as I described.
Sorry, I forgot that the program manager was used back then. However, there are task manager utils out there for download apparently. I may have been thinking about Win2000 or Win98 with Novell.stimpy77 wrote:Secondly, Windows 98 and 95 (and ME) did not have any Windows Services support whatsoever. The Services architecture was implemented exclusively in Windows NT and the NT-based OS's that followed.
Re: svchost.exe planned?
I think perhaps you're getting services confused with processes. explorer.exe is a process, not a service. It appears in the task manager under "Processes" but there doesn't seem to be anything explorer-related appearing in my services list.Iyeru wrote:I saw it in WinXP as a service plenty of times.stimpy77 wrote:OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.
Re: svchost.exe planned?
I suppose svc.host.exe will be necessary for internal and external compatibility?
Services. Windows / Reactos mixed domain ...
Will it be possible to make it compatible, but better than the windows version? (i think about blaster & sasser and collegues)
Services. Windows / Reactos mixed domain ...
Will it be possible to make it compatible, but better than the windows version? (i think about blaster & sasser and collegues)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler], Yandex [Bot] and 44 guests