|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Service Stop ProblemHi,
Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the cleanup thing which keeps the process running. Not really. A service should not return from OnStop() until it has completed
cleaning up. It should be noted that the SCM is a little smarter than just taking a services word on if it has been stopped or not. Even if you have a thread keeping your process alive, the SCM is likely to still kill it once the accepted window for shutting down has elapsed. Brendan Show quote "Prasad" wrote: > Hi, > Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has > stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the cleanup > thing which keeps the process running. > > > Hi,
This was your reply to my previous post wherein u asked me to create a secondary thread which would do the cleanup thing. Another thing is that my service is a .NET Service so is there anything like the Win32 Service wherein we get the handler and inform the handler about the status of the Service and extend the time to Stop. //Previous Post. The Services Control Manager (SCM) (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/service_control_manager.asp) has a default of 30 seconds for the amount of time it will wait for a service to complete after OnStart or OnStop are called, if this limit is exceeded, it will forcibly terminate the process as it sounds like you have discovered. One way around this (to quote from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/service_control_handler_function.asp) is: The control handler must return within 30 seconds, or the SCM returns an error. If a service must do lengthy processing when the service is executing the control handler, it should create a secondary thread to perform the lengthy processing, and then return from the control handler. This prevents the service from tying up the control dispatcher. For example, when handling the stop request for a service that takes a long time, create another thread to handle the stop process. The control handler should simply call SetServiceStatus with the SERVICE_STOP_PENDING message and return. Brendan Show quote "Prasad" wrote: //Current Post.> Hi, > I am writing a service which takes a long time to stop after the > OnStop > call is given by the Services Snap-in. The problem is I cannot cut down on > the time that it takes to Stop. The Service snap-in gives me the error > saying that the service did not respond to the Stop call in a timely > fashion. So is there any method by which I can get around this problem. > > Thanks > Prasad > > > Show quote "Brendan Grant" <grantb@NOSPAMdahat.com> wrote in message news:3B981A38-5A5C-4C8E-9533-756AA8A89512@microsoft.com... > Not really. A service should not return from OnStop() until it has > completed > cleaning up. > > It should be noted that the SCM is a little smarter than just taking a > services word on if it has been stopped or not. Even if you have a thread > keeping your process alive, the SCM is likely to still kill it once the > accepted window for shutting down has elapsed. > > Brendan > > > "Prasad" wrote: > >> Hi, >> Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has >> stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the >> cleanup >> thing which keeps the process running. >> >> >> The only way I know of to prevent the SCM from terminating your process is
to have it host another Service - a process can host more than one. Obviously you end up with a lot more infrastructure (installation) and logistics (two Services) that you have to deal with, but the other Service doesn't actually have to do anything useful. However you might be better off launching some other process to handle whatever makes the shutdown slow. -- Show quotePhil Wilson [Microsoft MVP-Windows Installer] Definitive Guide to Windows Installer http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=280 "Prasad" <ekke_nik***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:e56sd1wyFHA.3000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi, > This was your reply to my previous post wherein u asked me to create a > secondary thread which would do the cleanup thing. > Another thing is that my service is a .NET Service so is there anything > like the Win32 Service wherein we get the handler > and inform the handler about the status of the Service and extend the > time to Stop. > > //Previous Post. > The Services Control Manager (SCM) > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/service_control_manager.asp) > has a default of 30 seconds for the amount of time it will wait for a > service > to complete after OnStart or OnStop are called, if this limit is exceeded, > it > will forcibly terminate the process as it sounds like you have discovered. > > One way around this (to quote from > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/service_control_handler_function.asp) > is: > > The control handler must return within 30 seconds, or the SCM returns an > error. If a service must do lengthy processing when the service is > executing > the control handler, it should create a secondary thread to perform the > lengthy processing, and then return from the control handler. This > prevents > the service from tying up the control dispatcher. For example, when > handling > the stop request for a service that takes a long time, create another > thread > to handle the stop process. The control handler should simply call > SetServiceStatus with the SERVICE_STOP_PENDING message and return. > > Brendan > > > "Prasad" wrote: > >> Hi, >> I am writing a service which takes a long time to stop after the >> OnStop >> call is given by the Services Snap-in. The problem is I cannot cut down >> on >> the time that it takes to Stop. The Service snap-in gives me the error >> saying that the service did not respond to the Stop call in a timely >> fashion. So is there any method by which I can get around this problem. >> >> Thanks >> Prasad >> >> >> > > //Current Post. > "Brendan Grant" <grantb@NOSPAMdahat.com> wrote in message > news:3B981A38-5A5C-4C8E-9533-756AA8A89512@microsoft.com... >> Not really. A service should not return from OnStop() until it has >> completed >> cleaning up. >> >> It should be noted that the SCM is a little smarter than just taking a >> services word on if it has been stopped or not. Even if you have a thread >> keeping your process alive, the SCM is likely to still kill it once the >> accepted window for shutting down has elapsed. >> >> Brendan >> >> >> "Prasad" wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has >>> stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the >>> cleanup >>> thing which keeps the process running. >>> >>> >>> > > Win32 has SetServiceStatus() to coordinate estimated stop time and that you
are making progress... we just don't have access to it. /jhd Show quote "Brendan Grant" wrote: > Not really. A service should not return from OnStop() until it has completed > cleaning up. > > It should be noted that the SCM is a little smarter than just taking a > services word on if it has been stopped or not. Even if you have a thread > keeping your process alive, the SCM is likely to still kill it once the > accepted window for shutting down has elapsed. > > Brendan > > > "Prasad" wrote: > > > Hi, > > Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has > > stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the cleanup > > thing which keeps the process running. > > > > > > Prasad,
When service is being stopped by SCM, you have an event handler right. You can do the clean up operations over there, rather than depending on a thread isolated from the regular SCM management. Thanks and Regards, Deepak Vasudevan http://www.lavanyadeepak.tk/ http://deepakvasudevan.blogspot.com/ 91 98400 26014 Show quote "Prasad" wrote: > Hi, > Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has > stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the cleanup > thing which keeps the process running. > > > It should be avoided, really confusing to operations people. However, there
doesn't seem to be a [good] work around for a dotnet service. The ServiceController doesn't expose SetServiceStatus()... so I can't see how you would set SERVICE_STATUS dwWaitHint, dwCheckPoint (estimated time/keep alive respectively). Someone mentioned DependantServices... you could kludge it IF you know some absolute maximum time to Stop. Each DependantService gets 30 seconds to Stop. Soooo, if you had a bunch of DummyServices... and the last one was your real service... you might be able to get the time you need. ServiceController.Stop() looks like this... Anyone knows a good way to coordinate Stop time (SetServiceStatus) please post it ;) for (int num1 = 0; num1 < this.DependentServices.Length; num1++) { if (this.DependentServices[num1].Status != ServiceControllerStatus.Stopped) { this.DependentServices[num1].Stop(); this.DependentServices[num1].WaitForStatus(ServiceControllerStatus.Stopped, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 30)); } } NativeMethods.SERVICE_STATUS service_status1 = new NativeMethods.SERVICE_STATUS(); if (!UnsafeNativeMethods.ControlService(ptr1, 1, &service_status1)) // SERVICE_CONTROL_STOP { Exception exception1 = ServiceController.CreateSafeWin32Exception(); object[] objArray1 = new object[2] { this.ServiceName, this.MachineName } ; throw new InvalidOperationException(Res.GetString("StopService", objArray1), exception1); } Show quote "Prasad" wrote: > Hi, > Is it generally acceptable that the SCM says that the service has > stopped but the service has spawn a thread which is still doing the cleanup > thing which keeps the process running. > > >  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
