Problem with XP scheduler?
tanix
several tabs in a rapid succession on Win XP SP3.
What happens is box totally freezes. Task manager ->
Performance tab shows one of cores going up to 100% CPU time,
mouse freezes, keyboard does not work (not even ctl-alt-del)
and disk stops flashing every few seconds as it normally does
under XP.
Interestingly enough, it does not happen under Windows 7 on
the same box no matter how hard I try.
Some say it is a problem with crappy XP scheduler.
Is there anything I can do under XP to fix this issue?
Hardware:
Asus M4A78 motherboard,
Athlon 2, X4 620 CPU,
4 Gigs of DDR2 ram by Team Extreme.
Running on Windows XP SP3.
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
http://preciseinfo.org
Alexander Grigoriev
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgdirp$t0o$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
tanix
>I'd say it's a problem with Firefox. Send a bug to them.
Well, I did post to a forum and its been 2 days with no answer.
I am not sure you can file bugs as a user.
Secondly, what I do not like about this is that it runs fine under win 7
on the same box.
Secondly, I do not see how it could possibly lock up the entire box.
Does it have some kernel mode drivers?
This looks like a software bug. Some dead loop somewhere.
Except I don't even see how to figure out what is doing it
since the whole box is frozen.
Code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript
Leo Davidson
> In article <#yIP7T5fKHA.1...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev" <al...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I'd say it's a problem with Firefox. Send a bug to them.
Anyone can file Firefox bugs. You just have to create an account on
their bug-tracking site (which is free).
tanix
>On Dec 18, 4:23=A0am, ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
>> In article <#yIP7T5fKHA.1...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev"=
> <al...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >I'd say it's a problem with Firefox. Send a bug to them.
>> I am not sure you can file bugs as a user.
>Anyone can file Firefox bugs. You just have to create an account on
>their bug-tracking site (which is free).
Oh, Ok. I'll try to do that. Not how much luck I am going to have
cause they'd prolly consider any XP issues as low priority stuff,
seeing the amount of bugs people are talking about on their bb.
Do you happen to have a link for filing a bug report.
I am really stretched here. Every minute counts.
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
Pavel A.
here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc266483.aspx
and get a full dump. Or connect windbg to debug it on the site.
That it does not occur on win7 looks like a good thing :)
--pa
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgf04f$33v$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
m
process, you can bet it is a driver causing the problem. Most likely, the
difference in Windows 7 has nothing to do with Firefox, but a better driver
for some piece of HW in your system.
You can test this theory by altering the HW config and trying to reproduce
the problem. BIOS settings can have important impact on driver and IO path
selection too.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgdirp$t0o$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
tanix
>If you can easily repro this, try to setup a ctrl/scroll dump as described
>here:
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc266483.aspx
>and get a full dump. Or connect windbg to debug it on the site.
Well, from what I see, it does not look like a system crash.
It is simply some bug in the code getting into some dead loop
and tying up the processor.
Secondly, since I loose the keyboard, there is nothing I can do
from what I see to cause any dumps. I don't even know at which
exact point the box is going to hang.
>That it does not occur on win7 looks like a good thing :)
Well, depends. If it IS the XP scheduler or something of a kind,
it is one thing. If it is firefox proper, it is another thing.
If it is firefox bad plugings, it is a totally different thing.
Except I am still having a hard time comprehending how firefox
can lock the mouse, unless it runs in a kernel mode.
Mouse is a highest priority interrrupt at least for things we
are talking about here.
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
tanix
>What process is using that CPU time?
Well, I tried to use the task manager -> processes tab to see if
it displays me which process is eating up the cpu time. I was hoping
to see the firefox doing it.
But the problem is. Once it locks up, it locks up so bad, that even
task manager -> processes is not updated. So you just sit there zombified.
> If it is not directly ascribable to a
>process, you can bet it is a driver causing the problem. Most likely, the
>difference in Windows 7 has nothing to do with Firefox, but a better driver
>for some piece of HW in your system.
Well, it is not clear it has anything to do with any kind of driver.
What kind of driver in firefox can possibly do that?
The network driver is fine cause I am running some pretty heavy duty
processes that do multi-threaded downloads from the network at a peak rate.
The display driver is fine cause I don't have any kind of problem with
any other app so far.
The disk drivers are obviosly fine.
I just downloaded the latest version of BIOS. So, I doubt that is the problem.
I just can not think what kind of driver could be doing it.
I have no clue what kind of drivers firefox might use for example for
optimizing the rendering performance.
So, it is a wild goose chase.
The latest thing I did is to disable all firefox addons exept of imacros.
So far, the box behaves MUCH better. In fact, I have not seen a single
hang since and i tried to update 6 of my firefox tabs in a rapid
succession for 3 times and there is no problems so far.
Too early to say though. I need to run it for few days to see if it
pops up again.
>You can test this theory by altering the HW config and trying to reproduce
>the problem. BIOS settings can have important impact on driver and IO path
>selection too.
>"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
>news:hgdirp$t0o$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I am having firefox 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 freeze my box when I update
>> several tabs in a rapid succession on Win XP SP3.
>>
>> What happens is box totally freezes. Task manager ->
>> Performance tab shows one of cores going up to 100% CPU time,
>> mouse freezes, keyboard does not work (not even ctl-alt-del)
>> and disk stops flashing every few seconds as it normally does
>> under XP.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, it does not happen under Windows 7 on
>> the same box no matter how hard I try.
>>
>> Some say it is a problem with crappy XP scheduler.
>> Is there anything I can do under XP to fix this issue?
>>
>> Hardware:
>> Asus M4A78 motherboard,
>> Athlon 2, X4 620 CPU,
>> 4 Gigs of DDR2 ram by Team Extreme.
>> Running on Windows XP SP3.
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
Alexander Grigoriev
break into it.
You can also attach a remote debugger to it.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hghrt5$4fe$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
tanix
>If you run the process under debugger, then Pause/Break (and also F12) will
>break into it.
>You can also attach a remote debugger to it.
Thanx. Well, I am not sure I'd even want to go into investigation
of THIS depth and spend days on it as a result.
I don't feel like spending that much time and effort.
At this point, what I am looking for is for input from other
people and see if someone is either aware of the issue or have
some idea/suggestions.
From my estimates, even if I do find the exact reason,
no one is going to bother fixing it because everybody is into
win 7 nowadays. XP is non priority item I bet.
So, does it worth the bother to try to run firefox under debugger
control?
Pavel A.
Since the system becomes not responsible, it looks like a kernel mode
problem.
Try to obtain a crash dump as per this KB article
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc266483.aspx
Note that these instructions work only with PS/2 keyboard (not USB).
This is not because the system crashes. This is so that you could show the
dump
to someone who understands.
Instead of getting a dump, you could break into the machine with a kernel
debugger,
but this is more complex.
This NG is not a good place to ask Firefox questions. It is not a MS
product.
If you get evidence (dumps, traces) on your hands, somebody from the Firefox
fans may be able to help further.
Good luck,
--pa
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hghsd8$4fe$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
tanix
>Then, let me explain this again.
>Since the system becomes not responsible, it looks like a kernel mode
>problem.
Yep. That is what I thought first.
Except Windows is not trully multi-tasking system
and I saw plenty of times the system is freezing
because of some not well behaved program so far.
But the MOUSE?
Well, that one is a stretch.
Because mouse is one of the top priority items in Windows.
>Try to obtain a crash dump as per this KB article
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc266483.aspx
>Note that these instructions work only with PS/2 keyboard (not USB).
>
>This is not because the system crashes. This is so that you could show the
>dump
>to someone who understands.
>Instead of getting a dump, you could break into the machine with a kernel
>debugger,
>but this is more complex.
>
>This NG is not a good place to ask Firefox questions. It is not a MS
>product.
Well, except I am not sure what the issue is.
As far as I can see, no application program should lock
your box no matter what it does.
That is why I asked if someone might know about this issue here.
I know what this group is all about. Not to worry.
--
Pavel A.
> In article <81878418-E87A-4C50...@microsoft.com>, "Pavel
> A." <pav...@12fastmail34.fm> wrote:
>>Then, let me explain this again.
>>Since the system becomes not responsible, it looks like a kernel mode
>>problem.
>
> Yep. That is what I thought first.
> Except Windows is not trully multi-tasking system
> and I saw plenty of times the system is freezing
> because of some not well behaved program so far.
Understood. Yes, this should not normally occur, even on Windows.
Yet this can occur because of bugs in certain video drivers & BIOS,
various utilities that install hooks in various places, malware and
anti=malware.
Windows still is a true multitasking system (unless abused).
Regards,
--pa
tanix
That is why I asked: is there a low level kernel mode driver
in firefox? Cause that is about the only thing I can think of
that can possibly cause this kind of a behavior. To freeze the
kernel so bad that it even stops executing its normal disk
activity as you disk stops flashing the disk access light?
I really do not see what can possibly be the reason for the
app to cause such a behavior, unless firefox does some fast
rendering via their own kernel mode driver.
>Windows still is a true multitasking system (unless abused).
Well, that is not my experience.
But let is slide for now. I could care less.
It is what it is and I have to live with it
even though Linux Ubuntu seems MUCH more pleasant and stable
to me. Plus the very fact that you do not have security
related issues, such as trojans and viruses, is becoming
one of the prime criterias for me.
Plus the ability to have as many desktops as you like
is also a big plus for me.
Plus the ability to install just about anything I possibly
want without all the hassle and without worrying about security
issues is also a big plus.
Even such issues as text editors are much better on Linux
then on windows, even though notepad++ is quite a nice editor.
This is one of the things I care about quite a bit.
Plus the ability to do all sorts of installs on line and
not needing to reboot the box, is quite a plus for me.
Plus knowing that Linux IS in fact a true multitasking system
and that no app, no matter what, can possibly freeze your
box or make your system non responsive as I saw WAY too many
times on windows, counts for me.
Probably about the only reason I am forced to stay with win
for now is very poor performance of the JVM (Java Virtual Machine),
which translates in my case in doubling the time of processing
some big job I regularly do that takes hours if not days to
complete.
Another thing is GUI is not as fine grained as Windows
and it looks a bit bulky.
Beyond that, I'd be willing to swith to Linux entirely
and forget all these windows horror trips. Cause they do
get under my skin to the point that just one more thing
may make me switch to Linux forever.
>Regards,
>--pa
m
interject however, that as someone who has worked on many HW and software
platforms, some of your comments are silly. No version on *nix is immune to
the attacks that you describe as plaguing Windows - even though many builds
are better at hiding their deficiencies ;)
It is true that there are fewer viruses for *nix then for Windows, but that
should surprise no one, and does not imply that it is less vulnerable.
Similarly, it is easily possible to abuse the kernel in either OS, but more
commonly done for Windows since those who would try for UNIX, simply make
their own custom Linux build with whatever changes, detrimental or
otherwise, that they desire. And as the security model for both is nearly
identical, downloading and installing software bears the same risks in
either OS - but the lack of functionality in some kinds of programs for
Windows is a plaguing problem for me too!
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgl16j$l5e$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
tanix
>I am glad that you have found a workaround for your problem. I must
>interject however, that as someone who has worked on many HW and software
>platforms, some of your comments are silly. No version on *nix is immune to
>the attacks that you describe as plaguing Windows - even though many builds
>are better at hiding their deficiencies ;)
>
>It is true that there are fewer viruses for *nix then for Windows, but that
>should surprise no one, and does not imply that it is less vulnerable.
>Similarly, it is easily possible to abuse the kernel in either OS, but more
>commonly done for Windows since those who would try for UNIX, simply make
>their own custom Linux build with whatever changes, detrimental or
>otherwise, that they desire. And as the security model for both is nearly
>identical, downloading and installing software bears the same risks in
>either OS - but the lack of functionality in some kinds of programs for
>Windows is a plaguing problem for me too!
Wut?
First of all, when I get some package on Linux,
I get it from the trusted site by definition.
Since there is no "copyright" issues, I am mean it when I quote it,
there is really no need for you to even bother downloading something
from some funky site.
True, there is no fundamental difference between different O/Ses,
as far as security goes.
But...
For some strange reason, there is no such a concept in Linux
as viruses or trojans.
When my box was rooted with the "latest and greatest" rootkit,
that was as sophisticated as I have EVER seen anything,
and after me, trying to recover for it for few days, thanx
to my monitoring firewall, the more I was digging into it,
the more my hairs rose as I began to realize that even if
i reformat my drive, it won't help anything. The rootkit
is still there.
Even if i throw that drive away, does not help.
The rootkit is still there.
Here is what I found:
First of all, since it is possible to modify your boot
record on a hard disk, that means you can insall a jump
vector and totally control the boot process or anything
else for that matter.
Even if you flush BIOS, you are "flushing" it under the
rootkit supervision. So all those "OK" mesages are
meaningless.
What happens is this:
During the boot process, they modify your MBR, and I did
verify it for fact. So, they make one of your parititions
smaller and you don't even notice any of that.
ALL that happened is you lost about 6 megs of memory
in my case.
Now, they store tons of trojans and viruses between
partitions and they can run them any time they want more
or less, no matter what you think or do.
No antivirus program is capable of detecting this kind of
thing even in principle.
Do I have to tell you more?
Well, I WAS able to recover. I took me more than a month,
and it was a matter of principle for me.
Eventually, I found its weaknesses and simply cut a vain
on their throat, again, thanx to my monitoring fireawall.
And I logged their entire global network so bad, that
some "rulers" on IRC and specifically on #ubuntu channel
got freaked out for some reason.
Well, that is good enough for now.
I do not want to waste more time on this.
David Craig
totally wrong statements. While it is possible to write a BIOS vector, I
have not seen one. If you have, then the symptoms are possible. On many
motherboards there is a fallback BIOS in ROM and not in the flash memory.
Using some jumpers you can blow away the BIOS settings, replace the flash
BIOS chip and force it to boot from the ROM. Then you can program the flash
chip with a clean version.
If the malware is only based upon the hard drive, then it is easy to wipe
the HD and start over with a OS install. Boot to a MS-DOS CD and run
something to wipe the first few hundred sectors on the drive or even easier
just replace the drive. If you have more than one drive, disable all but
the new one. You may have to clean those up after you get a new OS
installed. You will probably have to take ownership of all files on the
drives as you reconnect them. With SATA drives, you can connect the data
cable while the OS is running to add a drive back, but I would verify there
is no autorun files on the drive from the MS-DOS CD or inhibit all autorun
capability in the newly installed OS. One trick is to use the WAIK to build
a bootable DVD-ROM on a system with no hard drives connected. Use an
EZ-Dock from Kingwin that permits USB and eSATA connections to a HD. As you
connect the device you can search for any files in the root directory. All
of this does require some experience and skill, but you can keep trying
until you get it right.
The reason for a lack of malware on Unix, Linux, MAC, etc. is that those
writing malware want to make money. With 90% of computers running Windows
and many untrained users it makes sense to attack that platform. With the
other platforms it is natural for the malware writers and users to believe
those machines are being run by someone who is much better trained and
knowledgeable.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgmhad$sd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tim Roberts
ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
>
>What happens is box totally freezes. Task manager ->
>Performance tab shows one of cores going up to 100% CPU time,
>mouse freezes, keyboard does not work (not even ctl-alt-del)
>and disk stops flashing every few seconds as it normally does
>under XP.
>
>Interestingly enough, it does not happen under Windows 7 on
>the same box no matter how hard I try.
>
>Some say it is a problem with crappy XP scheduler.
>Is there anything I can do under XP to fix this issue?
Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
that even mouse and keyboard stop. The likely issues are (1) RAM problem,
(2) graphics driver problem, or (3) USB controller problem (if you have USB
mouse).
--
Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
tanix
>
>ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
>>
>>What happens is box totally freezes. Task manager ->
>>Performance tab shows one of cores going up to 100% CPU time,
>>mouse freezes, keyboard does not work (not even ctl-alt-del)
>>and disk stops flashing every few seconds as it normally does
>>under XP.
>>
>>Interestingly enough, it does not happen under Windows 7 on
>>the same box no matter how hard I try.
>>
>>Some say it is a problem with crappy XP scheduler.
>>Is there anything I can do under XP to fix this issue?
>
>Get real.
:--}
> A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
>that even mouse and keyboard stop.
Tell me about it.
:--}
>The likely issues are (1) RAM problem,
>(2) graphics driver problem, or (3) USB controller problem (if you have USB
>mouse).
One more time: I did ran the memtest86 for about 20 hrs. No problem.
I did ran the Prime95 for several hours. No problem.
I did flash the bios with the latest version.
I did install the latest graphics drivers as far as I recall.
The bottom line. After I disabled all the addons in firefox 3.5.6
except of imacros, the system seems to be stable. Do not recall
seeing a single freeze so far.
So, can a software problem cause the O/S to behave in such a way
going as far as totally freezing your mouse, making your keyboard
inactive? And what IS the problem, especially if the same thing
is not happening on a different box with a single core processor?
Anyway, so far I am ok. I just pray this thing has gone away.
Someone suggested that it is not a ff problem but a crappy XP
scheduler misbehaving on a multi-core system. Simple as that.
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
Pavel A.
news:kcmti5h5t6k7pj9mh...@4ax.com...
The graphic driver and usb driver are software. Win7 has different (better?)
drivers.
-- pa
Alexander Grigoriev
> But...
>
> For some strange reason, there is no such a concept in Linux
> as viruses or trojans.
>
Because nobody bothers. Thojans are installed using old good social
engineering (install this codec to play the pron videos!), and Unix/Linux is
not going to make people less stupid than they are in mass.
> When my box was rooted with the "latest and greatest" rootkit,
> that was as sophisticated as I have EVER seen anything,
> and after me, trying to recover for it for few days, thanx
> to my monitoring firewall, the more I was digging into it,
> the more my hairs rose as I began to realize that even if
> i reformat my drive, it won't help anything. The rootkit
> is still there.
>
Here is a simple recipe for you (it worked for me for many years): DON'T run
with administrative privileges. DON'T give admin password to non-qualified
people.
tanix
I know. I never paid any attetion to it because I thought I was
sitting pretty protexted by 2 firewalls. Until it hit me.
It was so bad that I thought I am not going to be able to use win
on that box any longer. Luckily, I was able to recover.
As soon I got rooted and started investigating what this might be,
not even suspecting it is a nastiest rootking you can imagine,
someone said: good luck. You'd have to REFORMAT your disk, and even
if you do, good luck getting rid of rootkit. I thought he was just
paranoid and was stretching it WAY beyond reason. But the more
I dug deeper into this thing, the more I realized: Jesus funken
Christ, I am as deep in this shit than I can imagine.
For me, to do an O/S reinstall is a total disaster. It takes weeks
to restore all my environment.
Eventually, I HAD to reformat the main partition. Once I reinstalled
the O/S, the first thing I did is to install the av program, and
boom. It told me, before I could even install it, that I am in a deep,
deep crap. I did install in nevertheless. The next thing I did is to
install my monitoring firewall. As soon as I installed it, I saw
that funken rootkit is there, like nothing happened to it.
My box was sending out packets on port 80 to the main rootkit host
every 5 minutes. As soon as it sent out a packet, my system was
probed with ICMP type 4 and then SEVERAL hosts attacked it.
I got goose bumps after that.
But. Under XP, I is very expensive for me NOT to run under admin
account because of the kind of things I may do any moment. Just
to re-login is loosing at least half an hour of my time, loosing
everything in the environment more or less.
So, this idea of equivalent of sudo in win 7 is pretty helpful.
Unfortunately, when I tried my firewall under win 7, it reported
2 more network adapters under win 7. One of them is ipv6.
Wtf? The result. Even though I was able to connect to intermediate
ndis driver, the box would still freeze under win 7 because of
some bug somewhere. I don't even know where to start working on it.
My firewall was not written for ipv6 for one thing and I did not
plan to even bother with it in forceable future.
What do those 2 additional adapters for under win 7?
Boba
> A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
> that even mouse and keyboard stop.
lol...u'gotto'bekidding...
even some software written by professionals from MicroSoft
not just can do that but also _does_ it, and does it on a
regular basis with _every_ single version of Windows with
no exception so far. Mr. Roberts, please, do not fool the
audience, we do respect your opinion... Boba TC
Don Burn
regular basis and presents it a driver conferences since it has been driver
problems that cause this, not applications. Tim Roberts is a highly
experienced windows developer, please show your data, since the only
published data I know of contradicts you.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"Boba" <Bo...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:uhyQMswg...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4708 (20091222) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4708 (20091222) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Boba
news:euMp3ywg...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> ...
> Tim Roberts is a highly experienced windows developer,
absolutely agree; that's why i couldn't hold it.
> please show your data, since the only published data I know of contradicts
> you.
would this particular news thread serve the one?
wouldn't it? "published data" you're talking about
is exactly a sign of system behaving properly (at
least responsive to some extend); what my concern
is those unfortunate situations when you can't even
get any dump from completely frozen box caused by
powerpnt, winword, excel to name a few.
Leo Davidson
> "Don Burn" <b...@stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message
>
> get any dump from completely frozen box caused by
> powerpnt, winword, excel to name a few.
You're just assuming, with no evidence, that it is powerpnt, winword,
excel or firefox that are responsible for the lock-ups you've seen
when they may just be the trigger.
In fact, I'd replace "may" with "must" because even if a user-level
app does something deeply wrong, the drivers (or OS itself) are still
at fault if they allow that to lock-up the entire system.
At this point people usually reply asking why, if it's the drivers (or
OS) at fault, does the problem only occur when particular software is
used. The obvious answer is that different software does different
things -- even when performing the same high-level tasks there are
many ways to accomplish the same things -- and sometimes only the
things that certain apps do trigger bugs in drivers.
As a simple example, you might have a program which does lots of
concurrent file access on multiple threads which triggers a problem in
a filesystem driver which isn't protecting its shared data properly.
A weird, and completely rule (happened to several people), example I
know if is where people copying data with one program found their
files were corrupted. People blamed the program at first but on
investigation it turned out to be the system bus drivers. The reason
one program resulted in corrupt data but others didn't is because that
program had a progress dialog which had a lot more information in it
and the extra GDI calls to update the dialog were causing enough bus
traffic that it triggered a bug where the bus dropped data destined
for the IDE controller. People upgraded their motherboard drivers and
the problem went away.
Boba
news:da4e6a99-fc5b-432d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>You're just assuming, with no evidence, that it is powerpnt, winword,
>excel or firefox that are responsible for the lock-ups you've seen
>when they may just be the trigger.
this was not an assumption. that is a solid fact.
i don't understand why you are trying to separate user applications
from the rest of the system: if the box is dead - it is dead; for a
user computer's heart is not beating any more and all he or she can
do is to press that most popular button - the reset button. there's
no need in trying to explain the user that it was just some part of
the software and not the other: there are no parts in that dead body...
yes - one may say - look, the fans are spinning - it is still alive :-)
>In fact, I'd replace "may" with "must" because even if a user-level
>app does something deeply wrong, the drivers (or OS itself) are still
>at fault if they allow that to lock-up the entire system.
no, and no again. the trigger was that dude who pushed the power button
on that box to start it up and allowed the Windows to be loaded.
>At this point people usually reply asking why, if it's the drivers (or
>OS) at fault, does the problem only occur when particular software is
>used. The obvious answer is that different software does different
>things -- even when performing the same high-level tasks there are
>many ways to accomplish the same things -- and sometimes only the
>things that certain apps do trigger bugs in drivers.
and my point is there are applications from MS that do that, and that
there were not a single version of Windows yet that is free of that.
(well, i have not touched W7 yet). the whole idea of having UM was/is
to avoid the situations like this by keeping the system alive no matter
what.
>As a simple example, you might have a program which does lots of
>concurrent file access on multiple threads which triggers a problem in
>a filesystem driver which isn't protecting its shared data properly.
which reminds me that explorer and iexplore are on the list too.
>People upgraded their motherboard drivers and the problem went away.
isn't it true that any user level problem could be solved by replacing
either the core or the user himself?
Pavel A.
> "Leo Davidson" <leonudel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:da4e6a99-fc5b-432d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>You're just assuming, with no evidence, that it is powerpnt, winword,
>>excel or firefox that are responsible for the lock-ups you've seen
>>when they may just be the trigger.
>
> this was not an assumption. that is a solid fact.
> i don't understand why you are trying to separate user applications
> from the rest of the system: if the box is dead - it is dead;
Then let me help you understand.
"Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially
troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS.
Yes, they've architected OS that makes possible for 3rd party drivers to
crash or hang the entire system, but this architecture was state of the art
when it was created.
The OP has been adviced to get the dump and help finding the
exact reason of the problem, but he was not enough motivated to do this.
So the whole issue is moot. Another Windoze crash, yeah.
> isn't it true that any user level problem could be solved by replacing
> either the core or the user himself?
Replace XP with win7. Same h/w, same user, same application - the problem is
gone. Now, has MS & industry made some progress, or not?
--pa
tanix
And that is what I saw so many times, that I do not even
care to remember how many.
And that means that win is NOT a fully multitasking system.
I do not recall when I saw the same thing happening under
Linux. I'd have to scrach my cockpit to even recall such
a thing.
tanix
Yep, and the suggestions I heard to try to get some info
on this freeze would mean I'd had to spend quite some time
to even HOPE to be able to see where it could be.
But my original question was: what could POSSIBLY do such
a thing in the firefox? Do they have a kernel mode driver?
And for WHAT kind of thing? About the only think I can think
of is the rendering engine efficiency hack of some sort.
tanix
>On Dec 23, 4:45=A0am, "Boba" <B...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "Don Burn" <b...@stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> get any dump from completely frozen box caused by
>> powerpnt, winword, excel to name a few.
>
>You're just assuming, with no evidence, that it is powerpnt, winword,
>excel or firefox that are responsible for the lock-ups you've seen
>when they may just be the trigger.
That is what I smell.
>In fact, I'd replace "may" with "must" because even if a user-level
>app does something deeply wrong, the drivers (or OS itself) are still
>at fault if they allow that to lock-up the entire system.
Exactly the right point from what I see, and I am still waiting to
see something that actually makes sense in the scheme of things.
Btw, I am not sure I posted the latest scoop on this lockup.
Since I removed all firefox addons except of imacros, which is the
most important addon for me, I did not see a single lock up so far,
and I did try to stretch it as much as I could by doing the same
thing that would lock up the box originally, only several times
in a row, non stop, and it still hold fine.
Question: what could POSSIBLY be the reason some funky addon
would cause even MOUSE to freeze, assuming it IS what was causing it?
I doubt ANY of these funky addons even know what kernel mode
drivers are.
>At this point people usually reply asking why, if it's the drivers (or
>OS) at fault, does the problem only occur when particular software is
>used.
Yes, at least in this case. The ONLY thing that I recall locking
up my new box was firefox. I did TONS of work since then and ran
ALL sorts of heavy duty apps that DO use tons of threads and load
up the box as bad as it gets.
And I did run memtest86 and Prime95 stress tests for hours.
Not a single issue found.
> The obvious answer is that different software does different
>things -- even when performing the same high-level tasks there are
>many ways to accomplish the same things -- and sometimes only the
>things that certain apps do trigger bugs in drivers.
But WHICH driver could it possibly be in the case of firefox?
>As a simple example, you might have a program which does lots of
>concurrent file access on multiple threads which triggers a problem in
>a filesystem driver which isn't protecting its shared data properly.
>A weird, and completely rule (happened to several people), example I
>know if is where people copying data with one program found their
>files were corrupted. People blamed the program at first but on
>investigation it turned out to be the system bus drivers. The reason
>one program resulted in corrupt data but others didn't is because that
>program had a progress dialog which had a lot more information in it
>and the extra GDI calls to update the dialog were causing enough bus
>traffic that it triggered a bug where the bus dropped data destined
>for the IDE controller. People upgraded their motherboard drivers and
>the problem went away.
--
tanix
>"Boba" <Bo...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:OulXT#7gKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Leo Davidson" <leonudel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:da4e6a99-fc5b-432d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>You're just assuming, with no evidence, that it is powerpnt, winword,
>>>excel or firefox that are responsible for the lock-ups you've seen
>>>when they may just be the trigger.
>>
>> this was not an assumption. that is a solid fact.
>> i don't understand why you are trying to separate user applications
>> from the rest of the system: if the box is dead - it is dead;
>
>Then let me help you understand.
>"Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially
>troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS.
>Yes, they've architected OS that makes possible for 3rd party drivers to
>crash or hang the entire system, but this architecture was state of the art
>when it was created.
Btw, a while back I glanced over one article where ms came up with
new "model" for the driver. It was something to the extent that
you don't have to worry bout writing all this nasty kernel mode
code. You can pretty much stay on the user level and write it all
on a much higher level.
Did not have much time to look into it or what does it mean.
But is it true and what is the scoop on that?
>The OP has been adviced to get the dump and help finding the
>exact reason of the problem, but he was not enough motivated to do this.
I can not afford to waste a day of my time on this.
Sorry. If it was as bad as me not being able to run firfox,
I'd have to switch the browser rather than wasting days on
all this crap, digging up the stuff that makes me shiver
to even think about considering the odds of ever seeing
something of substance, and even if I do, what are my options?
Well, I bet they are:
1) reflash the bios with the latest version.
2) get the latest and greates version of ALL drivers
you can get your hands on.
If THAT does not help, switch the browser.
And THAT is the bottom line.
>So the whole issue is moot. Another Windoze crash, yeah.
>
>> isn't it true that any user level problem could be solved by replacing
>> either the core or the user himself?
>
>Replace XP with win7. Same h/w, same user, same application - the problem is
>gone. Now, has MS & industry made some progress, or not?
At least not the kind of progress I'd like to see.
If I can not run my perfectly working firewall app
that uses the cleanest NDIS intermediate driver,
and not just some hacks, like all the firewalls I know of do,
and if that tank app does not run out of the box on win 7
and simply FREEZES the box when I start it,
sorry, win 7 is out of the window for me.
So far, I have not seen a SINGLE thing that actually matters to me
on win 7.
I, personally, thing this whole branch, starting with vista
and up to win 7 is nothing more than the unsatiable desire
of ms to capitalize on just about anything they can come up with.
What I did see in win 7 is the standard ms trip.
They changed everything again. All your dialog boxes,
the behavior of basis system tools, the whole gui is completely
different, and on and on and on.
Now, how LONG will it take me to remember where to find some
tool, feature or dialog box so I could do the same thing I was
able to do undex xp?
Well, it will take about 2 years until it becomes automatic.
And THAT is the "strategy" to keep everyone behind.
To keep them busy just trying to catch up with you.
As far as anything I need to do with my box, Ubuntu is almost
there, and to the large extent is FAR superior than what ms
has to offer to me.
* No "copyright" sickness and associated paranoya,
the KGB style.
* Most seamless system update INCLUDING ALL your apps,
and not only the O/S alone.
* Availability of just about ANY tool I need.
* UTTER abscence of the most critical security related issues
since you don't even have to worry about dowloading some
gadget from unsafe source.
* Wide range of tools that do anything you want to do more
or less and in SEVERAL flavors.
And the list goes on.
>--pa
Alexander Grigoriev
"Leo Davidson" <leonudel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:da4e6a99-fc5b-432d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
know if is where people copying data with one program found their
files were corrupted. People blamed the program at first but on
investigation it turned out to be the system bus drivers. The reason
I once had a Intel motherboard which produced _memory_ errors _only_ if disk
IO was performed in parallel. The memory errors were not in IO buffers. Of
course, standalone test like memtest86 would not find that.
Leo Davidson
> And that means that win is NOT a fully multitasking system.
That's a silly thing to say.
It's like concluding that a car isn't a true "moving-forwards machine"
because it stops working if fitted with bad tyres which blow out and
cause it to crash into a tree.
I'm sure there are cases where Linux locks up as well. Maybe there's
someone out there who has never experienced your Firefox/Windows lock-
up but has experienced a lock-up on Linux, saying that "Linux is NOT a
fully multitasking system, unlike Windows." That'd be a silly thing to
say as well.
Stefan Kuhr
On 12/23/2009 2:27 PM, tanix wrote:
> <snip>
> Btw, a while back I glanced over one article where ms came up with
> new "model" for the driver. It was something to the extent that
> you don't have to worry bout writing all this nasty kernel mode
> code. You can pretty much stay on the user level and write it all
> on a much higher level.
>
> Did not have much time to look into it or what does it mean.
>
> But is it true and what is the scoop on that?
>
AFAIK, it is currently for USB drivers only.
--
S
Don Burn
such as USB, 1394 or serial. It cannot work for all drivers, and has
limitations, but it certainly is a good start. It will definitely reduce
the problems that things like cheap USB toys which in the past have had
drivers that caused millions of crashes on Christmas as kids plugged in the
toys.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"Stefan Kuhr" <kust...@gmx.li> wrote in message
news:uWJmJZAh...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4713 (20091223) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4713 (20091223) __________
Boba
news:uT5IjS8g...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> ...
> "Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially
> troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS.
and Pavel, do not forget, please, that it is ms who charges
tons of money for those drivers to be tested properly.
> Yes, they've architected OS that makes possible for 3rd party drivers to
> crash or hang the entire system, but this architecture was state of the
> art when it was created.
are you telling me that mcl tests those drivers against outdated core?
> The OP has been adviced to get the dump and help finding the
> exact reason of the problem, but he was not enough motivated to do this.
> So the whole issue is moot. Another Windoze crash, yeah.
the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software
that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy
statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause
your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." -
this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows,
it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do
respond to the problem.
> Replace XP with win7. Same h/w, same user, same application - the problem
> is gone.
"same application"? what do you mean? there is no 100% downward
compatibility.
the application must be rethought, restructured, recompiled, and installed
first. only after that it might run with no problem - and if it does - it
does
not mean that w7 is better than xp (all it means i'm getting better in it :)
> Now, has MS & industry made some progress, or not?
if you, Pavel, think "MS & industry" is the way to put it - i am really
sorry
for you. to me, there is ms, and there is industry. aint't gonna publish a
list of cases when the industry's steps forward 'accidently coincide' with
ms' losts in the court of law.
Boba
>That's a silly thing to say.
>
>It's like concluding that a car isn't a true "moving-forwards machine"
>because it stops working if fitted with bad tyres which blow out and
>cause it to crash into a tree.
not a good example at all, Leo, if it is based on the '90 case of ford
explorer (what a lucky coincidence!) and forestone: the problem was the
flaw in vehicle's suspension design covered up ford and poorely blamed
on tires maker (those same tire performed fine on other cars).
Don Burn
>
> the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software
> that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy
> statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause
> your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." -
> this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows,
> it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do
> respond to the problem.
>
raised the point earlier Microsoft spends a lot of time researching problems
like this when they occur. Now you are stating the problem is Windows with
no data other than the system hangs on this computer when a certain
application is run, where is your data to show it is not a third party
driver or even a driver embedded in the application. Lets stick to facts,
of which there are very little about the specific problem.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4713 (20091223) __________
Boba
> ...
> Now you are stating the problem is Windows with no data other than the
> system hangs on this computer when a certain application is run, where is
> your data to show it is not a third party driver or even a driver embedded
> in the application.
what type of data do you want me to publish? in what form?
i will be glad to do it next time dexplore (to add one more to the list)
freezes my xp_sp2 box. and i am afraid i know your next reply: oh, that
is such and such driver combination that causes the problem. i won't be
able to provide any dumps 'cause nothing is created. i can not make that
pc accessible from outside - it is a development machine. i'd love to
see the problem being solved, but i can not even contact ms regarding
the issue because that dexplore ended up installed by the 3rd party.
Leo Davidson
> not a good example at all, Leo, if it is based on the '90 case of ford
> explorer (what a lucky coincidence!) and forestone: the problem was the
> flaw in vehicle's suspension design covered up ford and poorely blamed
> on tires maker (those same tire performed fine on other cars).
So you're essentially saying the Ford Explorer was not a vehicle?
Riiiiiiight.
You don't know that all the drivers on this system were WHQL tested.
WHQL testing does not, and probably cannot, guarantee the drivers will
work in every situation. (WHQL is a series of tests, not a
mathematical proof!) Drivers for other OS have issues as well. You're
running XP SP2 when SP3 has been out for ages. You refuse to provide
any data or do any proper investigation into the problem. You
apparently just want us to magic-up an answer for you over the
Internet with almost zero information, all of it anecdotal, and until
someone can magic-up said answer you're going to point your finger at
something you dislike and arbitrarily blame that.
(And you could be right that it's Windows, but the fact is you have no
evidence and experience shows it's almost always a 3rd party driver
issue. We are saying that you can't assign blame without evidence when
there are several other possibilities. You refuse to acknowledge the
other possiblities because you'd rather blame the thing you hate. Even
if it is Windows, which I very much doubt, we're talking about a
version that's almost a decade old and isn't even patched to the
latest service pack level, yet you're using this problem to make
general statements about Windows today.)
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying: I give up. Good luck
solving your problem yourself as I doubt anyone else will help you
(even if they try, like we did) when your mind is so closed and you've
apparently already decided what to blame based on prejudice rather
than evidence.
tanix
>On Dec 23, 11:28=A0pm, "Boba" <B...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> not a good example at all, Leo, if it is based on the '90 case of ford
>> explorer (what a lucky coincidence!) and forestone: the problem was the
>> flaw in vehicle's suspension design covered up ford and poorely blamed
>> on tires maker (those same tire performed fine on other cars).
>
>So you're essentially saying the Ford Explorer was not a vehicle?
>Riiiiiiight.
>
>You don't know that all the drivers on this system were WHQL tested.
Yes I do.
Because during the install, I did not get the warning message
from any driver from what I recall.
>WHQL testing does not, and probably cannot, guarantee the drivers will
>work in every situation. (WHQL is a series of tests, not a
>mathematical proof!) Drivers for other OS have issues as well. You're
>running XP SP2 when SP3 has been out for ages.
Cut it out. WHO says I am running SP2?
Where does it say it?
> You refuse to provide
>any data or do any proper investigation into the problem.
What is this guilt mainpulation stuff.
I do not appreciate this kind of talk.
> You
>apparently just want us
Who is US?
I am talking to those, who MIGHT have an idea what is going on
and not those those arrogant bastrads like yourself, who are
attacking me with their guilt trips.
Get lost, donkey.
> to magic-up an answer for you over the
>Internet with almost zero information, all of it anecdotal, and until
>someone can magic-up said answer you're going to point your finger at
>something you dislike and arbitrarily blame that.
>
>(And you could be right that it's Windows, but the fact is you have no
>evidence and experience shows it's almost always a 3rd party driver
>issue. We are saying that you can't assign blame without evidence when
>there are several other possibilities. You refuse to acknowledge the
>other possiblities because you'd rather blame the thing you hate. Even
>if it is Windows, which I very much doubt, we're talking about a
>version that's almost a decade old and isn't even patched to the
>latest service pack level, yet you're using this problem to make
>general statements about Windows today.)
>
>All of which is a very long-winded way of saying: I give up. Good luck
>solving your problem yourself as I doubt anyone else will help you
>(even if they try, like we did) when your mind is so closed and you've
>apparently already decided what to blame based on prejudice rather
>than evidence.
--
tanix
Oh, I see.
So NDIS is still in I hope?
:--}
tanix
>Actually it is for a number of driver types, typically that use a protocol
>such as USB, 1394 or serial. It cannot work for all drivers, and has
>limitations, but it certainly is a good start. It will definitely reduce
>the problems that things like cheap USB toys which in the past have had
>drivers that caused millions of crashes on Christmas as kids plugged in the
>toys.
Cool I like that description.
Makes me happy.
Cause I started worrying that I have to scrap my perfectly good
NDIS driver, which would be a total disaster. I'd rather switch
to Linux finally if that were the case. :--}
tanix
>"Pavel A." <pav...@12fastmail34.fm> wrote in message
>news:uT5IjS8g...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> ...
>> "Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially
>> troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS.
>
>and Pavel, do not forget, please, that it is ms who charges
>tons of money for those drivers to be tested properly.
VERY good point.
When I read the requirements to get my driver tested,
it was something comparable to the cost of driver development.
Well, not exactly. But screw that one.
I just wrote a piece of code to disable their beep, beep, beep
horror story dialog box.
It is easier to pass the KGB interrogation than do have your
driver certified. Even MAJOR manufacturers release their stuff
with drivers that do beep, beep, beep:
YOU ARE ABOUT TO INSTALL THE SOFTWARE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
WRITTEN BY OSAMA BIN LADEN AND COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR
LIVELIHOOD.
DISGUSTING!!!
>> Yes, they've architected OS that makes possible for 3rd party drivers to
>> crash or hang the entire system, but this architecture was state of the
>> art when it was created.
>
>are you telling me that mcl tests those drivers against outdated core?
>
>> The OP has been adviced to get the dump and help finding the
>> exact reason of the problem, but he was not enough motivated to do this.
I can not waste days on this thing.
>> So the whole issue is moot. Another Windoze crash, yeah.
Anyway, the latest result is this:
The box just locked up again even after I removed all addons in
firefox.
Interestingly enough, it did behave MUCH more stablely
and the crash occured for the 1st time in almost a week.
But...
The question is this: why this crash does not happen on a
single core system for the same version of everything?
>the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software
>that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy
>statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause
>your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." -
Correct. That is MY understanding of it at least.
Especially the mouse, one of the highest priority devices in windows.
>this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows,
>it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do
>respond to the problem.
>> Replace XP with win7. Same h/w, same user, same application - the problem
>> is gone.
>
>"same application"? what do you mean? there is no 100% downward
>compatibility.
>the application must be rethought, restructured, recompiled, and installed
>first. only after that it might run with no problem - and if it does - it
>does
>not mean that w7 is better than xp (all it means i'm getting better in it :)
>
>> Now, has MS & industry made some progress, or not?
>
>if you, Pavel, think "MS & industry" is the way to put it - i am really
>sorry
>for you. to me, there is ms, and there is industry. aint't gonna publish a
>list of cases when the industry's steps forward 'accidently coincide' with
>ms' losts in the court of law.
--
tanix
>
>"Boba" <Bo...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:uL0OsZCh...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software
>> that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy
>> statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause
>> your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." -
>> this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows,
>> it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do
>> respond to the problem.
>>
>No you are speculating what you describe is a symptom, not a cause. I
>raised the point earlier Microsoft spends a lot of time researching problems
>like this when they occur. Now you are stating the problem is Windows with
>no data other than the system hangs on this computer when a certain
>application is run, where is your data to show it is not a third party
>driver or even a driver embedded in the application. Lets stick to facts,
>of which there are very little about the specific problem.
One more time: does anybody know if firefox 3.5.5 or 3.5.6 uses some
kernel mode driver?
Jonathan Wilson
> kernel mode driver?
David Craig
Firefox is open source, he could easily answer the question himself.
"Jonathan Wilson" <jfw...@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message
news:u$QfEKHhK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Leo Davidson
> Cut it out. WHO says I am running SP2?
> Where does it say it?
I didn't say anything about you, I was replying to Boba who said this:
Don Burn
through WHQL? Well, the old rule of "you get what you pay for" still
applies. So you think the appropriate answer is to subvert the system to
hide a warning dialog? Somehow I don't believe this is a driver most of us
want anywhere near their system, sounds like a form of MALWARE writing to
me. Please let the community that lives on these newsgroups know what
driver it is so we can avoid it.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hgv5c7$925$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> When I read the requirements to get my driver tested,
> it was something comparable to the cost of driver development.
> Well, not exactly. But screw that one.
> I just wrote a piece of code to disable their beep, beep, beep
> horror story dialog box.
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4714 (20091224) __________
Alexander Grigoriev
"Boba" <Bo...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:OhALS9Ch...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
tanix
Ok, thanx. In that case, I do not understand what is the issue
we are dealing with. Because about the only thing I can think
of that can lock up the box so bad is kernel mode drivers.
Or, as is the very purpose of this thread, the scheduler under
multi-core environments. Again, I am seeing this freeze only
on a multi-core environment under the same conditions.
Yes, the other drivers are not the same. But I just fail to
see how even video driver may have anything to do with it,
which is about the only relevant driver I can think of.
tanix
>I see someone answered his question. I was waiting to mention that since
>Firefox is open source, he could easily answer the question himself.
Again: I don't care about your guilt trips.
What YOU think is the highest priority item for ME,
is not the same thing as I think.
If you think you are the messanger of God and know all the
answers and the "best way of solving the problem", to me
you are just a moron with limited menthal abilities.
Nothing more.
I know what I am doing in MY life.
And I am the one that decides how do I solve which problem.
And I am the one who knows how much stuff is piled on my
desk and which item is handled with which priority.
To tell you the truth, I could care less if people like
you even exist. Because about ALL I can expect from you
is to suck my energy and waste it on this kid of bullshit.
And that is about the last time I am interested in talking
to you personally.
>"Jonathan Wilson" <jfw...@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message
>news:u$QfEKHhK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> One more time: does anybody know if firefox 3.5.5 or 3.5.6 uses some
>>> kernel mode driver?
>> The official distribution of Firefox does not include any kernel drivers.
>
>
--
tanix
Well, I noticed yesterday that there was some other guy
with some issue.
The thing is I started this thread and was under impression
we are dealing with the issue I brought up.
tanix
>Gee you develop drivers for $250, which is what it costs to run a driver
>through WHQL?
In YOUR scheme of things.
I don't argue that.
It is not a matter of money alone.
It is a matter of how long will it take you to get it finally
stamped.
If even some MAJOR manufacturers release their drivers
without the stamp, what does it tell you, mr. smart?
> Well, the old rule of "you get what you pay for" still
>applies.
Crap. Not applicable here.
> So you think the appropriate answer is to subvert the system to
>hide a warning dialog?
What other choices do I have?
To waste MONTHS of my time?
Setup several machines?
Go through headaches that even major manufacturers would
try to avoid?
> Somehow I don't believe this is a driver most of us
>want anywhere near their system,
I give a flying dead chicken about "most of us".
"Most of us" is a language of the herd.
Learn to stand on your own feet
instead of hiding behind the backs of others,
a heard of goats.
> sounds like a form of MALWARE writing to me.
You need brains first.
> Please let the community that lives on these newsgroups know what
>driver it is so we can avoid it.
Screw your "community" trip.
You came here to this life alone.
And you will leave this plane alone.
And thank God that "community" is not going to stand
by your bed in the last moment of your life and force
you to sign some stoopid paper, just to get the benefits
of your life doing nothing to deserve it.
You are just a coward to me,
who pokes his nose into affairs of others,
and whose input is not only a big funken zero,
but a big funken minus.
Cause people like you never contribute anything to the
equasion. They just suck you blood.
Get lost.
Not interested.
tanix
>Get a manually initiated full crash dump.
There is no crash that I see.
It is a hang in some dead loop.
That is why it is taking 100% of your CPU.
I can not run this app under user level debugger.
I have to run it under kernel mode debugger
and waste all sorts of time to even see anything
that will give me any hope this thing is going to go away.
Because who cares about XP nowadays with all this win 7 hype?
Who is going to put it on high enough priority list
to get fixed?
--
Don Burn
your driver passes the tests, it typically takes less than a week to get it
signed. If your driver does not pass the tests then I would suspect you
have a problem. There is some pain but not a lot in setting up the WLK and
running the tests, it is something professionals recognize they need to do.
As far as the insults at the end, you are the one who does not identify
yourself, you can find my name and company on each of these posts. As far
as the community I have been involved in Windows Driver development for 15
years, and spoken to a large number of users and companies, I don't believe
most of them would agree with you.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hh0ims$e5o$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4715 (20091224) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4715 (20091224) __________
Alexander Grigoriev
Forcing a system crash from the keyboard. This allows to get a memory
snapsot for debugging. Zip and post it to some download site.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hh0irt$e5o$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
Alexander Grigoriev
> In article <uDL6mFKh...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Don Burn"
> <bu...@stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote:
>>Gee you develop drivers for $250, which is what it costs to run a driver
>>through WHQL?
>
>
> To waste MONTHS of my time?
> Setup several machines?
> Go through headaches that even major manufacturers would
> try to avoid?
>
So you're saying you just want to release a driver that was never validated
against some standard tests?
Boba
>So you're essentially saying the Ford Explorer was not a vehicle?
>Riiiiiiight.
no. im'saying it is ford motor co.s' resposibility to
design and properly test the suspension in order to
reduce the possibility of such a crash, instead they
were trying to hide the problem.
>You don't know that all the drivers on this system were WHQL tested.
???
>WHQL testing does not, and probably cannot, guarantee the drivers will
>work in every situation. (WHQL is a series of tests, not a
>mathematical proof!) Drivers for other OS have issues as well.
agree.
>You're running XP SP2 when SP3 has been out for ages.
so?... i also run 4 versions of 95, 2 of 97, 2 of 98 (Au is
missing), 6 of 2000, almost all of nts, ... and it goes all
the way up to (but not including) w7. what makes you think
i am not running xp_sp3?
>You refuse to provide any data or do any proper investigation
>into the problem.
i really don't have any digital data to provide (see my reply
to Don). plus, it's not a big deal to me - windows crash because
of its internat problems - it crashes on me much more often due
to what iam'doing to it.
>You apparently just want us to magic-up an answer for you over
>the Internet with almost zero information, all of it anecdotal,
>and until someone can magic-up said answer you're going to point
>your finger at something you dislike and arbitrarily blame that.
i have not even asked a question. i do not expect any answers
(not from you at least after seeing you in a mood far from
being neutral, i wish you switch to the holiday mood soonest.)
>(And you could be right that it's Windows, but the fact is you have no
>evidence and experience shows it's almost always a 3rd party driver
>issue. We are saying that you can't assign blame without evidence when
>there are several other possibilities.
i don't blame no one. i see no reason for and have no evidence of that.
>You refuse to acknowledge the other possiblities because you'd rather
>blame the thing you hate.
i don't hate. there are things i do not like, and that xp2 box became
'an occasional freezer' after some software from an ms' licensed
distributor has been installed, but i do need that package and what
i do not like is the dexplore.exe: that pc never had a single problem
before and it runs ok if dexplore is not loaded into memory. could
the problem hide inside one of the drivers? - yes. is there a chance
it is a 3rd party driver not certified by ms - no.
>Even if it is Windows, which I very much doubt, we're talking about a
>version that's almost a decade old and isn't even patched to the
>latest service pack level, yet you're using this problem to make
>general statements about Windows today.)
well... i still see a lot businesses refusing to switch to windows:
they are happily running 80386-based machines and are not looking
for an alternative. (is this why there're no pentiums on mars?)
and speaking of patching, when you ship your product out, do you
expect your customer's machine being fully patched and up-to-dated?
i use a different approach: i'd rather spend more effort to find a
workaround for any possible situation by testing against as many
versions as i can.
Happy and Safe Holidays to ya'll!
tanix
>See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc266483.aspx
>
>Forcing a system crash from the keyboard.
Your keyboard is locked.
> This allows to get a memory
>snapsot for debugging. Zip and post it to some download site.
>
>"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
>news:hh0irt$e5o$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <#AbolSLh...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev"
>> <al...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Get a manually initiated full crash dump.
>>
>> There is no crash that I see.
>>
>> It is a hang in some dead loop.
>> That is why it is taking 100% of your CPU.
>>
>> I can not run this app under user level debugger.
>> I have to run it under kernel mode debugger
>> and waste all sorts of time to even see anything
>> that will give me any hope this thing is going to go away.
>>
>> Because who cares about XP nowadays with all this win 7 hype?
>> Who is going to put it on high enough priority list
>> to get fixed?
>>
>
>
--
Alexander Grigoriev
detected by the i8042.sys kernel driver, at DIRQL.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hh0ndf$rs3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Leo Davidson
> no. im'saying it is ford motor co.s' resposibility to
But you said "Windows is not a proper multitasking OS" which is
hogwash. If you want to make the weaker claim that, eight years ago,
Microsoft may not have tested every aspect of the 3rd party drivers
they shipped with the OS then that's fine, but also hardly a
revelation. Testing every aspect of drivers is impossible, especially
against the behaviour of programs from the future which haven't been
written yet.
More importantly, you have shown no proof that any of this is the
result of drivers which shipped with Windows. It could be from 3rd
party drivers you installed yourself. You have no evidence to back up
your claims.
>>You don't know that all the drivers on this system
>> were WHQL tested.
>
> ???
Windows does not mandate that all drivers you install have passed WHQL
testing. I thought everyone knew this? You are free to install drivers
written by anyone which have not been put through WHQL.
The only requirement in vanilla Windows is that drivers for 64-bit
versions of Windows must be signed by the driver author. But Microsoft
are not involved in that signing at all. It isn't a stamp of approval
from Microsoft; it's proof of authorship and non-tampering of the
binaries.
> >You're running XP SP2 when SP3 has been out for ages.
>
> so?...
So no only do you have no evidence for your claims but you're
complaining about supposed bugs in an old version of an old OS. If SP2
wasn't important then why did you even mention it?
> what makes you think i am not running xp_sp3?
You explicitly saying you were using xp_sp2 in relation to the
problem. Duh.
> i really don't have any digital data to provide
You have no evidence yet you've completely made up your mind and are
trying to convince others. That makes you a charlatan, not a
scientist.
> windows crash because of its internat problems
There you are making the claim again, yet you can't back it up with
any evidence and chances are the crashes are due to 3rd party drivers
which can crash any OS.
> i don't blame no one.
Haha. You keep blaming Microsoft & Windows.
Pavel A.
J de Boyne Pollard
M. Burn, M. Davidson, M. Grigoriev, M. Craig: You are being trolled.
Unmistakable Marks #2, #4, and #5 are now in evidence, as well as some
other tell-tales.
<URL:http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/
unmistakable-marks.html>
The best course of action for grownups is to ignore the ad hominem
baloney. Remember that it's no reflection upon you when someone
starts an ad hominem argument, even if the ad hominems are aimed at
you. It's only a bad reflection on the fool making the ad hominems.
Other people will and do easily recognize such arguments for the
attempts to distract that they are, and won't give credence to insults
from fools, especially when they are clearly risible. Let's please
concentrate upon threads where people are *not* here just to waste
everyone's time. You actually had it right the first time, M. Craig.
Tim Roberts
"Boba" <Bo...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>"Pavel A." <pav...@12fastmail34.fm> wrote:
>> ...
>> "Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially
>> troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS.
>
>and Pavel, do not forget, please, that it is ms who charges
>tons of money for those drivers to be tested properly.
Microsoft (WHQL) does not test 3rd-party drivers. Vendor test the drivers
and submitting the passing test logs. Microsoft validates them and issues
the appropriate certificate. Plus, $250 per operating system does not seem
like "tons of money".
It would be better for everyone involved here if you would stop speaking
out on topics where your entire knowledge is based on rumor and baseless
innuendo.
--
Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
tanix
It would be probably be even better if you just mind your own
busniess instead of telling others "how it is".
Grzegorz Wróbel
>
> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
> that even mouse and keyboard stop.
Get rational. User mode app can lock up mouse and keyboard just by
starving system processes that manage mouse and keyboard input. On the
single CPU/core machines it was very common to happen. On the multi core
machines much less likely to happen "naturally", but still possible.
--
Grzegorz Wr�bel
677265676F727940346E6575726F6E732E636F6D
tanix
</dev/nu...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
>> that even mouse and keyboard stop.
>
>
>Get rational. User mode app can lock up mouse and keyboard just by
>starving system processes that manage mouse and keyboard input. On the
>single CPU/core machines it was very common to happen. On the multi core
>machines much less likely to happen "naturally", but still possible.
That means your OS is not trully multitasking.
Grzegorz Wróbel
>>
>> Get rational. User mode app can lock up mouse and keyboard just by
>> starving system processes that manage mouse and keyboard input. On the
>> single CPU/core machines it was very common to happen. On the multi core
>> machines much less likely to happen "naturally", but still possible.
>
> That means your OS is not trully multitasking.
>
Not really. It means only it doesn't have efficient mechanisms that
prevents process starvation (like aging low priority processes so they
could eventually get CPU time). Windows manage priorities only for
processes with base priority in range 1-15.
So any CPU extensive process with base priority between 16 and 31 can
starve lower priority process. But these "real time" priorities should
be used with care and in very special cases only.
Now, this is true that on Windows having multiple CPU extensive, normal
priority processes can have negative impact on mouse, keyboard and GUI
response (especially on single CPU machines). I haven't been able to
observe the same on linux/unix machines, which could indicate the
multitasking architecture is though up better there. That's also
probably the reason why many people who used linux feel that Windows is
not "truly multitasking".
But technically speaking such statement is not correct.
tanix
Well, I actually saw an article some time ago that specifically
described the whys of windows not being a multitasking OS.
I think it is not a particle science to be able to find this or
plenty of other articles if you spend a few minutes on it.
Except I have no interest.
It is just conceptually clear that if your OS can be locked up
by some process, no matter what it is, then your machine becomes
unusable, which is utterly unacceptable from the standpoint of
security at least.
Basically, my original question on this thread was just to estimate
where is the problem and not necessarily try to identify the exact
issue because it looks to me it is going to take hours if not days,
and the payoff at the end, even if I manage to find it, is probably
zero. Because no one is going to bother with XP and the chance of
it getting fixed, even if they know exactly what the issue is is
also pretty close to zero.
Basically, since it is a new box, first of all, I want to make sure
it is not a hardware issue and I end up with a crappy box.
If it IS a firefox problem, and it does get under my skin,
I can just switch to a different browser. Not the end of the world.
If someone does know about this issue and if there is a solution,
and it does have something to do with xp scheduler, then I'd like
to know if there is a fix for this.
That is ALL I am after. The box does not lock up with any other
apps so far, and it has been at least a month in a pretty heavy
duty use. So.... So far so good.
Grzegorz Wróbel
> If it IS a firefox problem, and it does get under my skin,
> I can just switch to a different browser. Not the end of the world.
>
Get an older version of Firefox, like 2.0 and see if it crashes/locks
your Xp. If it doesn't you can assume the problem is Firefox 3.x related.
I have experienced myself that FF 3.5x is much less stable than older
2.0 version.
tanix
</dev/nu...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>tanix wrote:
>> If it IS a firefox problem, and it does get under my skin,
>> I can just switch to a different browser. Not the end of the world.
>>
>
>Get an older version of Firefox, like 2.0 and see if it crashes/locks
>your Xp. If it doesn't you can assume the problem is Firefox 3.x related.
>
>I have experienced myself that FF 3.5x is much less stable than older
>2.0 version.
Could be. Not that I think 2.x was that stable to begin with.
Except starting from 3.x, the rendering performance is much better.
I am just not sure if I am going create a grand headache if I try
to install an older version and then go back to the latest version.
Liviu
> ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
>>
>>What happens is box totally freezes [...]
>
> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up
> so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop.
True, of course (for user-mode software).
> The likely issues are (1) RAM problem, (2) graphics driver problem,
> or (3) USB controller problem (if you have USB mouse).
#2 and #3 can be verified/eliminated by trying to duplicate the issue
with MS's stock video/usb/mouse drivers.
FWIW as a historical footnote, the chance of a buggy graphics driver
bringing down the entire system was increased after the NT4 decision
to move most graphics to kernel mode as a "privileged" Win32 subsystem.
While the whitepaper at
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc750820.aspx
does a good job to describe (and defend) the design decision, fact
remains that in NT3.x a GDI bug alone could not bring down a server
(though it could still freeze its local interactive session).
As for the speed gains delivered by that change, they have been spent
many times over since, on the later themes, effects and other gimmicks.
Liviu
tanix
>"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote...
>> ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
>>>
>>>What happens is box totally freezes [...]
>>
>> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up
>> so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop.
>
>True, of course (for user-mode software).
>
>> The likely issues are (1) RAM problem,
Not in my cases. Tested that thing for 20 hrs.
>> (2) graphics driver problem,
I doubt, but who knows. Just the fact that nothing else causes
this kind of lockup does not mean it is certainly not a graphics
driver, although I have my doubts.
>> or (3) USB controller problem (if you have USB mouse).
Did not think of that one.
Except I'd assume the standard driver OS driver is used.
>#2 and #3 can be verified/eliminated by trying to duplicate the issue
>with MS's stock video/usb/mouse drivers.
>
>FWIW as a historical footnote, the chance of a buggy graphics driver
>bringing down the entire system was increased after the NT4 decision
>to move most graphics to kernel mode as a "privileged" Win32 subsystem.
>
>While the whitepaper at
>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc750820.aspx
>does a good job to describe (and defend) the design decision, fact
>remains that in NT3.x a GDI bug alone could not bring down a server
>(though it could still freeze its local interactive session).
Well, if it is just a local session, that is another story.
>As for the speed gains delivered by that change, they have been spent
>many times over since, on the later themes, effects and other gimmicks.
Would not be surprised at all.
To me, these kinds of lockups are so common that to call windows
a fully multitasking OS is not only a joke. It is pathetic.
>Liviu
Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]
The argument put forth in this article that the same potential for
unreliability caused by bad graphics drivers existed before the change is
weak:
"the Win32 server process is considered a critical system component of
Windows NT 3.51, such that if the CSRSS.EXE process faults the entire
Windows NT operating system is shutdown."
"[...] However, from the user's point of view, that potential to disrupt the
system has always existed. If the GDI process in Windows NT 3.51 should fail
for any reason, the user would be presented with a system that appears to
have crashed. The fact that the kernel is still operating is invisible to
the user, because it simply appears that the system is not responding.".
I much prefer your argument, thanks for sharing:
"[...] in NT3.x a GDI bug alone could not bring down a server (though it
could still freeze its local interactive session).".
The phrase "is considered" is particularly interesting. It is as if whoever
wrote it knows it is more of a considered opinion than a fact.
The article would, in my mind, come across as more "honest" if it fully
disclosed the risk and explained that the risk is justified. You can work
with (babysit) vendors all you want, some of them are going to screw up if
not during the transition, then later. Unfortunately, bad software is
common, even in critical drivers.
Paul
"Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote in message
news:ObYOMm$hKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]
I know it's probably not good for me to follow up my own post but...
I now find myself amused by phrase "the user would be presented with a
system that appears to have crashed". There's a big difference between
appearing to crash and crashing :) Especially with a server that can do all
kinds of non-interactive things without ever needing an interactive session!
Paul
"Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]"
<paulrich...@community.nospam> wrote in message
news:ORMQhfAi...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Alexander Grigoriev
often done, you don't depend on any buggy driver running on it. Actually,
starting with 2008, Windows server simply uses a generic SVGA driver.
"Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]"
<paulrich...@community.nospam> wrote in message
news:uzVbAiAi...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Boba
>On Dec 24, 9:31 pm, "Boba" <B...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> no. im'saying it is ford motor co.s' resposibility to
>
>But you said "Windows is not a proper multitasking OS"
I did not say that (though I do partially agree with that).
Boba TC.
tanix
>"Leo Davidson" <leonudel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:3471eff1-3a57-417a...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 24, 9:31 pm, "Boba" <B...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> no. im'saying it is ford motor co.s' resposibility to
>>
>>But you said "Windows is not a proper multitasking OS"
Is it?
>I did not say that (though I do partially agree with that).
>Boba TC.
>
>
--
Tim Roberts
>Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
>> that even mouse and keyboard stop.
>
>Get rational. User mode app can lock up mouse and keyboard just by
>starving system processes that manage mouse and keyboard input. On the
>single CPU/core machines it was very common to happen. On the multi core
>machines much less likely to happen "naturally", but still possible.
No. A user mode app can certainly prevent other user mode apps from
processing mouse and keyboard input, yes, but the mouse pointer keeps
moving, and pressing the caps lock key still toggles the caps lock
indicator. Stopping those requires the "assistance" of kernel code.
tanix
That's the whole point here.
Again, mouse is the highest priority anything in windows architecture
as far as anything physical is concerned, and it is ran by the kernel.
It could, or rather should, care less what app is doing what.
It was interesting to observe that I had task manager running to see
what happens when mouse freezes, and it was a shocker to see that
after mouse freezes, one of 4 cores was loaded 100% on firefox 3.5.5,
and 3 cores went to 100% load with ff 3.5.6.
BUT. The task manager kept updating the CPU history windows.
So the kernel WAS in fact running. It was not a crash.
Liviu
>
> I now find myself amused by phrase "the user would be presented with a
> system that appears to have crashed". There's a big difference between
> appearing to crash and crashing :) Especially with a server that can
> do all kinds of non-interactive things without ever needing an
> interactive session!
Some lines in that whitepaper sound very carefully worded, indeed ;-)
Server scenarios aside, I believe the same caveat would apply nowadays
to standalone workstations with fast user switching enabled and multiple
active sessions.
Liviu
Liviu
> In article <ObYOMm$hKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Liviu"
> <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote:
>>"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote...
>>
>
> I doubt, but who knows. Just the fact that nothing else causes
> this kind of lockup does not mean it is certainly not a graphics
> driver, although I have my doubts.
As I said, one step to check that theory would be to run the stock
SVGA driver and try to duplicate the problem.
In addition to Tim's shortlist of suspects, I'd also suggest
(4) overclocking and (5) overloading the power supply.
> To me, these kinds of lockups are so common that to call windows
> a fully multitasking OS is not only a joke. It is pathetic.
To me, those kind of lockups are virtually absent. Can't honestly
remember the last time I had to use the hard reset button. YMMV and
apparently does. Yet, that doesn't automatically make it OS's fault.
Liviu
J de Boyne Pollard
MS> component of Windows NT 3.51, such that if the
MS> CSRSS.EXE process faults the entire Windows NT
MS> operating system is shutdown."
PB> The phrase "is considered" is particularly interesting. It is
PB> as if whoever wrote it knows it is more of a considered
PB> opinion than a fact.
It is, nonetheless, a fact, not an opinion. From Windows NT 5
onwards, the BreakOnTermination flag is set in the EPROCESS structure
for that process. In earlier versions, the Session Manager halts the
system when it detects that a CSRSS process has died.
Grzegorz Wróbel
No. The point is you can lock mouse and keyboard to the point that the
mouse cursor stops moving and no other application (including Windows
shell) can receive/process mouse and keyboard input.
This is known issue, if you have never experienced it as a programmer,
you still can read about it in MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms685100(VS.85).aspx
You can of course argue this is still "kernel code" that freezes the
box, but such argumentation doesn't have much sense since this code is
executed directly by user mode API calls.
This is the sample test code I once wrote to effectively freeze the
single CPU/core Windows box for 30 seconds (on post XP system you'll
need to run it elevated otherwise SetPriorityClass() will fail):
//lockme.cpp
# include <windows.h>
# include <math.h>
int main()
{
int i,j,k;
double a,b,c;
ULARGE_INTEGER start,current;
SYSTEMTIME st;
FILETIME ft;
SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(),REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS);
SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(),THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL);
GetSystemTime(&st);
SystemTimeToFileTime(&st,&ft);
memcpy(&start,&ft,sizeof(ft));
for(;;){ //lets do some heavy computation;
c = 0.9;
a = sin(c);
b = cos(c);
c = log(pow(a,b)+c);
k = int(c)+5;
j = 4*k*k*k + 2*k*k + k + 1;
GetSystemTime(&st);
SystemTimeToFileTime(&st,&ft);
memcpy(¤t,&ft,sizeof(ft));
if(current.QuadPart-start.QuadPart>300000000) // release the lock
after 30 seconds
break;
}
return 0;
}
The above code simply sets its base priority to 31 and then occupy CPU.
Haven't tried it on multicore box, but presumably if you run it from
elevated console n times (when n is number of the CPU cores) you should
freeze the box too. Unless OS tries to reserve one core for itself
(unlikely).
Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]
crash in many different spectacular ways, and commonly. I think it became a
kneejerk reaction to any frustrating Windows crash for someone to say
"Windows crashes like that all the time... you should use *X instead". While
this may have been justifiable at that time (though simplistic unecessary
bashing IMO), those days are long gone.
I too do not recall a single instance of a system wide crash for several
years, and before that several more years.
Paul
"Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote in message
news:%23m1aC6F...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
tanix
</dev/nu...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Tim Roberts wrote:
>> Grzegorz Wr�bel </dev/nu...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>>> Get real. A software problem cannot cause your machine to lock up so hard
>>>> that even mouse and keyboard stop.
>>> Get rational. User mode app can lock up mouse and keyboard just by
>>> starving system processes that manage mouse and keyboard input. On the
>>> single CPU/core machines it was very common to happen. On the multi core
>>> machines much less likely to happen "naturally", but still possible.
>>
>> No. A user mode app can certainly prevent other user mode apps from
>> processing mouse and keyboard input, yes, but the mouse pointer keeps
>> moving, and pressing the caps lock key still toggles the caps lock
>> indicator. Stopping those requires the "assistance" of kernel code.
>
>No. The point is you can lock mouse and keyboard to the point that the
>mouse cursor stops moving and no other application (including Windows
>shell) can receive/process mouse and keyboard input.
ONLY in not truly multitasking OS.
>This is known issue, if you have never experienced it as a programmer,
>you still can read about it in MSDN:
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms685100(VS.85).aspx
You can read all you want.
Enough of this.
--
tanix
>There was a day where Windows would lock up in this manner, not to mention
>crash in many different spectacular ways, and commonly. I think it became a
>kneejerk reaction to any frustrating Windows crash for someone to say
>"Windows crashes like that all the time... you should use *X instead". While
>this may have been justifiable at that time (though simplistic unecessary
>bashing IMO), those days are long gone.
:--}
Is this some kind of a joke?
What do you think I am seeing here?
Some woodoo magic?
And I tell you, I am seeing a KERNEL screwing up to the point
beyond belief, which is represented by loosing control of the
highest priority device, a mouse, that is ran by the kernel,
and nothing less.
I really do not understand the purpose of all this gibberish.
>I too do not recall a single instance of a system wide crash for several
>years, and before that several more years.
>
>Paul
>
>"Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote in message
>news:%23m1aC6F...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote...
>>> In article <ObYOMm$hKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Liviu"
>>> <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote:
>>>>"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> The likely issues are [...] (2) graphics driver problem,
>>>
>>> I doubt, but who knows. Just the fact that nothing else causes
>>> this kind of lockup does not mean it is certainly not a graphics
>>> driver, although I have my doubts.
>>
>> As I said, one step to check that theory would be to run the stock
>> SVGA driver and try to duplicate the problem.
>>
>> In addition to Tim's shortlist of suspects, I'd also suggest
>> (4) overclocking and (5) overloading the power supply.
>>
>>> To me, these kinds of lockups are so common that to call windows
>>> a fully multitasking OS is not only a joke. It is pathetic.
>>
>> To me, those kind of lockups are virtually absent. Can't honestly
>> remember the last time I had to use the hard reset button. YMMV and
>> apparently does. Yet, that doesn't automatically make it OS's fault.
>>
>> Liviu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Alexander Grigoriev
Only mouse hardware is handled by kernel.
Mouse drawing is handled by GDI, which partially runs in user mode.
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hhdg1m$1it$9...@news.eternal-september.org...
Don Burn
I would love to hear your definition of a "truly multitaking OS". About all
that anyone can agree on is that a multitasking OS supports multiple tasks.
This has been a debate for a very long time, depending on the definition
locking all the other processes including display is not only ok, it is
expected.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"tanix" <ta...@mongo.net> wrote in message
news:hhdfs1$1it$8...@news.eternal-september.org...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4726 (20091229) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4726 (20091229) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Alexander Grigoriev
runaway threads. It's pretty easy to detect such threads - if a thread uses
up its timeslice repeatedly, it's running away. For such a thread, the
scheduler should apply penalty. Even if it's REALTIME_PRIORITY. There is no
reason a realtime thread should be CPU-intensive; if it is, it should be
demoted automatically.
In the current state, a couple of runaway Internet Explorer windows can
severely impact system responsiveness, to the point it's almost impossible
to switch a session. And fricking DDE broadcasts don't make it better, too.
I wish DDE died away.
That said, if a videodriver wedges up (which would produce an infamous 0xEA
THREAD_STUCK_IN_DEVICE_DRIVER bugcheck), then it's IHV's fault.
"Don Burn" <bu...@stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message
news:emgj$XLiKH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Don Burn
everything else in an OS once you release it someone will start depending on
that behavior and be very annoyed when you change it. I have worked with
companies using Windows in embedded environments where the behavior you
complain about is expected so that a critical task can be completed within
certain time constraints.
My real complaint with this whole discussion is that multitasking means
different things to different people. If you are an old timer like me,
there were major screams 30 years ago when Unix claimed to be multitasking.
At that time most companies described what we now consider as multitasking
as multiprocessing and that tasks were what we currently call threads. And
30 years ago, Unix did not support threads.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"Alexander Grigoriev" <al...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23cJ1l6L...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]
I totally agree with your disdain for DDE. If I understand it correctly, and
I may not because I really don't care about or *want* to understand DDE, it
blocks the client until all top-level windows respond or it times out, even
if they are not the target! And so DDE is in effect allowing a hanging
process to cause other user processes to hang as well.
From what I have read, the only reason that Internet Explorer uses DDE is
because it was that way in the original code purchased from NCSA which they,
in turn, licensed from Spyglass!
Someone is probably relying on DDE, whereas they should be using
ShellExecuteEx and have the shell figure out how to open a URL. The shell
would then run Internet Explorer using a command line.
Paul
"Alexander Grigoriev" <al...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23cJ1l6L...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Boba
>>>But you said "Windows is not a proper multitasking OS"
>
> Is it?
>
>>I did not say that (though I do partially agree with that).
>>Boba TC.
not to the depth of my knoweledge. (at least _not_yet_, for sure.)
there are situations when windows runs stable for awhile emulating
multitasking among internal tasks spawned by itself. boba.
Liviu
>
> And I tell you, I am seeing a KERNEL screwing up to the point
> beyond belief, which is represented by loosing control of the
> highest priority device, a mouse, that is ran by the kernel,
> and nothing less.
Let me get this straight... You have a rather singular issue which
others seem to neither have, nor be able to duplicate, yet people
tried to help and volunteered good advice (repeatedly). You chose
to ignore that advice, or shrugged it off as you don't "think" it is a
driver bug, instead you are "telling" us that you are "seeing" a kernel
screwup. Sure, that'll convince everybody in a technical newsgroup,
and build your credibility sky-high up, too ;-)
If you are serious about finding/fixing the actual issue, then first
thing unplug your usb mouse, reboot into safe mode (with networking)
and see if the issue persists. Unless and until you do that, maybe
think twice about reciting the "it's windows' fault" mantra ad nauseam,
lest risk being (mis)taken for a preprogrammed troll.
Liviu
Liviu
That is technically correct, with further insight at (last comment in)
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/10/13/8969404.aspx#9005811
and
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/07/24/running-windows-with-no-services.aspx
though David Solomon notes in the former that...
|| [prior to XP] theoretically if you killed or suspended Smss,
|| and then killed Csrss, the system would not crash (but as noted,
|| the display went blank)".
...which is in fact consistent with the distinction being discussed
before, between a stalled interactive session vs. a dead system overall.
Alexander Grigoriev
out a great "MFC Goldmine" thread(s).
"Liviu" <lab...@gmail.c0m> wrote in message
news:%23F5DFBP...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
tanix
>
>I would love to hear your definition of a "truly multitaking OS". About all
>that anyone can agree on is that a multitasking OS supports multiple tasks.
>This has been a debate for a very long time, depending on the definition
>locking all the other processes including display is not only ok, it is
>expected.
Btw, do you realize what you did, mr. smart by top poting
and leaving the original material AFTER you sig?
Well, your paragraph above is ALL that is left for someone,
who is going to find this article via web.
So, if you do THESE kinds of screwups, what can you possibly argue
as far as "truly multitasking OS" goes?
Well, for one thing, truly multitasking OS would NEVER exhibit
such a behavior. Just imagine the IBM mainframes on Wall St.
behaving like this? Or some major banks, or you name it?
Do you realize what would happend in the world?
On nuclear plants, public transportation system, water supply
facilities and ALL sorts of things in the real world?
Anyway, following is what was stripped out as a result of your
"holier than thou" arrogant style of presentation.
For one thing, top posting is problably the most disgusting
signature, despised more then most other things as it demonstrates
utter I-don't-care-lessness and "holier thatn thou" arrogance,
exhibited by some smart fart, that things what HE has to say
is nothing less then the word of God.
So, here is the rest of the article that would be gone
if I did not restore it manyally by copy/paste:
(Do you see the difference between reality and fiction?)
===== Quote begin =====
===== Quote end =====