There is a System process (PID == 4) in windows. It uses more internet, how can I block this process from using the internet,
once I blocked with firewall inbound and outbound connections, it has worked for 5 days, after 5th day it uses the internet again.
"System Process" represents the operating system (some system services) and the drivers.
Notably, antiviruses and malware tools use the "System Process". Blocking it indiscriminately is not a good practice as you can break core functionalities.
Inspect your configuration and the traffic in order to spot which "applcation" is consuming so much bandwidth.
Related
I would really appreciated another perspective on an issue we have been experiencing.
The environment:
We have a small subset of VMs (5 Windows Server 2008 R2 VM's) hosted on a Windows Server 2012 Cluster of 8 Physical Hosts which supports 100's over VMs across various OS (2008/2012 etc).
The issue:
Servers within the subset of VMs experience widespread network SERVICE failures. The failure presents itself as a loss in connectivity for a large number of network related services operating on the VMs (including certain critical network dependant applications).
The impacts:
Server remains online.
Inability to RDP to the servers via Domain Accounts (Local accounts are fine).
Windows event logs associated with Netlogon Failure: Event ID 5719 - This computer was not able to set up a secure session with a domain controller in domain DOWNERGROUP due to the following:
The RPC server is unavailable. This may lead to authentication problems.
Windows event logs assocaited with Group Policy Failure:
Event ID 1054:The processing of Group Policy failed. Windows could not
obtain the name of a domain controller. This could be caused by a name
resolution failure. Verify your Domain Name System (DNS) is configured
and working correctly
Widespread Agent Failure (AV, Monitoring, Application) - Lack of connectivty to centralised management servers.
The resolution(s). Stopping an agent service. Strange however its not limited to a specific agent however if we stop agent A, the server comes back to life, however if we also stop agent B, the server comes back to life with Agent A still running. Restarting the VM also resolves the issue.
Note that these events do not appear on other VMs hosted off the same host at the time of the outage. Also note that the guest is located on the same host prior to, during and after the outage.
We have investigated the suspicion that their may be issues with Dynamic Range Port Allocation with the server possibly getting into a bottleneck state. We have implementedthe "MaxUserPort" and "TCPTimedWaitDelay" registry parameters and have set them to 65k and 30 respectively.
Also note that when an outage occurs, it does not always occur on the same VMs in the group. Often times it is 2, 3, 4 or all servers.
Im really just asking if anyone can see these symptoms and relate to possible causes for our situation.
Any help/discussion would be appreciated.
Well, this turned out to be an interesting resolution.
We discovered that one of our server agents, while not actually showing open ports in Netstat, had over 40,000 handles growing linearly over time.
Had to enable the "handles" column in task manager to be able to see this info.
This was the miracle post...
http://blogs.technet.com/b/kimberj/archive/2012/07/06/sever-quot-hangs-quot-and-ephemeral-port-exhaustion-issues.aspx
I have following scenario:
Server should be Daemon.
Other Apps should be clients.
Many clients should communicate with server to get their task done by server at a time.
These tasks are such as copyfile, deletefile etc.
My solution:
Server has 5 worker threads each containing named pipe. Each pipe's availability status is kept in Shared memory structure. When client wants to communicate with server, it checks which pipe is available from shared memory then opens that pipe & sends its message on that pipe, respective worker thread of server servers this client request. That worker thread sends request status (Success/failure) on that pipe so that client will become aware of last operation status.
As far as I know, pipes on Mac os x are unidirectional & they lack capability of creating unlimited instances like Windows.
What mechanism could be best suited for such kind of communication?
Thanks,
Vaibhav.
As far as I know, pipes on Mac os x are unidirectional & they lack capability of creating unlimited instances like Windows.
Pipes are one directional, but Unix sockets are not. This is probably what you are after if you want to directly port your code to OS X.
However, there are probably better ways to do what you want to do, including stuff like Distributed Objects which I admit I have never used. Even if you stick with a socket interface, I think one socket would be easier with a thread monitoring the socket and handing off work to worker threads as it arrives, using listen and accept. Better still, have an NSOperationQueue or a dispatch queue to put the work on, then the OS will handle the task of optimising the thread count.
I am looking for suggestion for hosting my WCF enterprise application.
The app. require to run without stopping at the server. It also use TCP to yield the best performance at the intranet environment.
I am thinking to host it at window service because IIS recycle process, and has timeout.
However, I find this from the msdn http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff649818.aspx :
Window service...Lack of enterprise features. Windows services do not have the security, manageability, scalability, and administrative features that are included in IIS.
Does it mean Window Service is not suitable for enterprise application? But How about MS SQL, Oracle, MySQL etc. They all host at Win. Service right?
Regards
Bryan
Windows service is suitable for enterprise application! The quoted text actually means that IIS has a lot of built-in management features which are not available in custom hosting (like windows service) unless you implement them at your own.
One of such features is the recycling you want to avoid which helps application to keep low resource consumption (server is in healthy state). Another such feature is IIS checking of the worker state. If worker process looks stuck (don't process requests for any reason), IIS will start automatically another process and routes new requests to that process.
IIS + WAS + AppFabric can provide very big feature set but they are not good for every scenario. If you have service which requires some background continuous, scheduled or multi threaded processing it is probably better to move to self hosted scenario.
Recently I gone through a an article explaining potentiality of YAWS server and the number of requests it processes per second. It was mentioned that YAWS can handle 80K requests per second and it also run in multi threaded environment to improve request processing limit.
How can we compare IIS, Apache with YAWS? Which one will process maximum requests? Can I find any comparisons somewhere?
Check this link out:http://www.sics.se/~joe/apachevsyaws.html Link to Yaws vs apache
You see that Yaws handles 80000 concurrent requests (and continuing) while apache fails at around 4000 connections. This is because Yaws runs on the Erlang/OTP VM. Processes belong to this machine and not the operating system. Erlang has been highly customised for concurrent programming. Infact, other erlang web applications like:mochiweb,webmachine, e.t.c are much more powerful than apache when it comes to handling many concurrent requests. Yaws web server scales better than any web server i know of today. With the ability to create appmods, you can create Erlang Applications that communicate over http protocol, making use of the power of yaws.
Yaws home page is: http://yaws.hyber.org/. Actually, Yaws gets its power from OTP (Open Telecom Platform). This set of powerful libraries found at http://erlang.org/, has the most advanced design patterns such as fail over systems, supervision trees, finite state machines, event handlers, e.t.c, You should actually start using erlang for your next web application!!!!
We're planning a system running on Windows/.Net 3.5 that has a number of "services" that need to run in the background. Some will be active all of the time, but some will only be called occassionally and can be stood-up on demand.
As far as I can see, my options are:
Windows Services - always running(?)
IIS hosted something - called on demand
COM+/ .Net Enterprise Sevices - most complex option, but most powerful?
Distributed transactions is not a requirement, these are mainly computation engines, rather than transaction processors.
Does anyone have any experience of working with all of these and what further pros & cons can be claimed for each technology?
EDIT
Is suppose there are multiple ways of hosting code in IIS, web services, WCF (as pointed out below), any others? Relative pros/cons?
WCF feels like the right way to go. There are still many choices to make. WCF provides a number of communication mechanisms and hosting environments:
WCF combines the following technologies under one set of APIs-
ASMX;
WSE;
Remoting;
COM+;
MSMQ.
So for instance you can use persistent messages from MSMQ for occassionaly connected clients or standard XML encoding SOAP messages over an HTTP transport layer. You can also use new features in 3.5 like binary encoding of XML or JSON encoding over HTTP.
Hosting environments include:
Console applications
Windows services
WCF services inside IIS 7.0
and on Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008 you can use WAS (Windows Activation Services) to host WCF services.
Different hosting environments have pros and cons. I suggest you look at MSDN for more details (e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb332338.aspx).
Because WCF encompasses a lot of functionality it is more difficult to learn than any one of the technologies it replaces. I still think it pays for itself in the long run.
It depends on what the software will do, and how (and if) users or systems need to interact with it. Depending on those things, there may be one more, often overlooked, option: set it up as a scheduled task. This is often a very good alternative to a windows service, if the software is of the kind that will act on certain time intervals (check for a change in a database, act on the changed data and send it somewhere, for instance).
If you will have other systems talking directly to your software, I would imagine that a WCF application hosted in IIS would be a rather straighforward way. We use both those approaches in my current assignment; WCF services for looking up and storing data, and scheduled tasks for data calculations that run on a regular basis.
The scheduled task has one upside compared to the others in one specific field; it uses system resources only when running.
You mentioned starting up a process "on demand". WAS - Windows Activation Service, or sometimes called Windows Process Activation Servvice, though it is never abbreviated "WPAS" - is the thing inside Windows that provides on-demand process activation. The way it works - when a message arrives, WAS can start a worker process to handle the message. WAS was, prior to IIS7, fairly tightly integrated into IIS. It was used primarily to activate processes that did web work - like an ASP.NET worker process. With IIS7, WAS is generalized so that it can activate worker processes based on non-HTTP as well as HTTP messages. If you write your app to receive messages through WCF, you can get activation essentially "for free". That applies if it is HTTP, TCP, MSMQ; SOAP or otherwise.
The key thing with this on-demand startup though, is that it is tied to the communication. In fact the process lifecycle model for WAS is tied to communication as well. By default if there are no incoming messages after a while, the process will be shut down by WAS. That may or may not be what you want.
As for process hosting - COM+ offers a hosting environment but it is primarily intended for use as a host for processes that communicate. This may not be the perfect fit for you.
If you have compute engines, you may just want to run a Windows Service. A service like that can be started and stopped either administratively or programmatically. In the latter case, you could imagine a WAS-activated worker process programmatically starting a windows service.
You could also imagine writing a simple Windows Service that watches a location (filesystem, message queue, etc) for a message, and when that file or message arrives, the Windows Service starts up a compute engine process, which itself is NOT a Windows Service, but is just a process.
Speaking of MSMQ - That is basically the same model as MSMQ triggers. You can configure MSMQ to start a process when a message arrives on a particular queue.
There are lots of options.