|
|
|
Svchost vague
Showing all messages in thread #1208676257
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
The following are all of the messages in this thread (7 in all), shown in chronological order. Click any message subject to view that message by itself or to view the thread hierarchy.
|
Svchost vague
Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:24 am
Posted by Dave
(53 messages posted)
I have two active svchost.exe running on my W2K (SP4). So far no problems. Until
yesterday when one of the svchost dances around 50-100% cpu usage.
I've examined services registered in this process and found only this : http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svchostom8.png
If I destroy this process it makes general working very hard. No more copy-paste,
all icons in folders and desktop are basically locked. Latest NOD, CounterSpy, checked
with Hijack and TrojanRemover. Not even a hint of a some nasty reason for this occurrence.
Perhaps I've overlooked something? How do I resolve this process to continue working
in normal fashion without this present unnecessary hunger for CPUs.
If I set affinity in Sysinternals Process Explorer to only one core, then at times,
goes 30% less hungry.
Thanks for you suggestions
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 9:00 am
Posted by C K
(5974 messages posted)
You can be infected with malware that may not be (easily)detected, a bad driver,
bad piece of software, or a malfunctioning piece of hardware. Check the Event Viewer
for errors and warnings. It's difficult troubleshooting this type of problem from
a forum.
Might start with this link:
http://ask-leo.com/svchost_and_svchostexe_crashs_cpu_maximization_viruses_exploits_and_more.html
Trying to kill a Windows needed service and/or setting the affinity isn't the answer.
It only makes things worse. You will have at least two or more service hosts running
depending on what you have installed or do with your system. I have 6 running on
my machine and all are needed.
If you are sharing files, then it is likely you are infected somewhere. If you can't
find the cause, you may end up reinstalling the system clean to get rid of the problem
and take note when installing and running programs to see when it starts again..
In many cases it takes less time doing that than trying to fix the system.
On Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:24 am, Dave wrote:
>I have two active svchost.exe running on my W2K (SP4). So far no problems. Until
>yesterday when one of the svchost dances around 50-100% cpu usage.
>
>I've examined services registered in this process and found only this : http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svchostom8.png
>
>
>If I destroy this process it makes general working very hard. No more copy-paste,
>all icons in folders and desktop are basically locked. Latest NOD, CounterSpy, checked
>with Hijack and TrojanRemover. Not even a hint of a some nasty reason for this occurrence.
>
>Perhaps I've overlooked something? How do I resolve this process to continue working
>in normal fashion without this present unnecessary hunger for CPUs.
>
>If I set affinity in Sysinternals Process Explorer to only one core, then at times,
>goes 30% less hungry.
>
>Thanks for you suggestions
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Posted by Dave
(53 messages posted)
Much obliged C K,
Thank you for that reminder. I forgot to mention events as well. Indeed, for example,
I have "service failed" for ATI tuner that not in machine for more then half year.
Also : "The UPS service could not access the specified Comm Port." And mind you,
no UPS on this machine either.
All this errors only appear when problematic svchost is put to sleep :
http://img378.imageshack.us/my.php?image=event1iw8.png
http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=event2ue1.png
On WS2003 and XP I also have several required svchosts, much like the one you mention
in your OS.
Strangely, in this W2K, I only have 2, and second becoms troublesome one.
--------------- quote -----------------------------------
On Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 9:00 am, C K wrote:
>You can be infected with malware that may not be (easily)detected, a bad driver,
>bad piece of software, or a malfunctioning piece of hardware. Check the Event Viewer
>for errors and warnings. It's difficult troubleshooting this type of problem from
>a forum. > >Might start with this link:
> >>Trying to kill a Windows needed service and/or setting the affinity isn't the
answer. > It only makes things worse. You will have at least two or more service
hosts running >depending on what you have installed or do with your system. I have
6 running on
>my machine and all are needed.> >If you are sharing files, then it is likely you
are infected somewhere. If you can't >find the cause, you may end up reinstalling
the system clean to get rid of the problem >and take note when installing and running
programs to see when it starts again.. > In many cases it takes less time doing that
than trying to fix the system. > > >
--------------- quote -----------------------------------
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:31 am
Posted by DEX
(11745 messages posted)
Dealing with Unwanted Spyware and Parasites
Click Here
You can have many running at one time " svchost.exe " it's a new command like the
old one called run dll but like CK said it can be a virus..
see list below for just some of them running most of the time.
http://www.blackviper.com/WIN2K/servicecfg.htm
==========
Are you a wood worker ?,if so Click Here
On Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:24 am, Dave wrote:
>I have two active svchost.exe running on my W2K (SP4). So far no problems. Until
>yesterday when one of the svchost dances around 50-100% cpu usage.
>
>I've examined services registered in this process and found only this : http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svchostom8.png
>
>
>If I destroy this process it makes general working very hard. No more copy-paste,
>all icons in folders and desktop are basically locked. Latest NOD, CounterSpy, checked
>with Hijack and TrojanRemover. Not even a hint of a some nasty reason for this occurrence.
>
>Perhaps I've overlooked something? How do I resolve this process to continue working
>in normal fashion without this present unnecessary hunger for CPUs.
>
>If I set affinity in Sysinternals Process Explorer to only one core, then at times,
>goes 30% less hungry.
>
>Thanks for you suggestions
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Monday, April 21, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Posted by Dave
(53 messages posted)
As always, thank you fine gents of Annoyances.org,
Consider that over. I decided for fresh W2K, and that is what brought me never seen
enigma. Prior of that, I've (Always use this Boot CD) used Bart PE boot disk to backup
some important things and setups. So I did. But after W2K was finished, I can no
longer access 2 particular partitions! They appear as uknown file system!
But XP SP2, normally presents those two partitions and even more so, I can use then
as I did before. Both NTFS to be exact. Tried all usual chkdsk routines, but really
can't quite grasp why W2K no longer can access them. He makes them visible, but you
can use them.
I don't like this, doesn't sound reliable, and all those partitions where originally
made with W2K.
Please advise? Do I transfer all files to another drives, then again reformat those
partitions and return data back for w2k to see those files again? Why is it that
W2K no longer can use those?
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 9:01 am
Posted by C K
(5974 messages posted)
What size is the HDD and how/what size(s) is it partitioned in? If you are dealing
with a 48 bit LBA issue which was active on the partitions and you reinstalled W2K,
you well may not be able to see the extended partitions. XP with at least SP1 will
be able to see them on install.
Not so much a reliablity issue as one of dealing with an old operating system on
newer hardware maybe. Many things are difficult to troubleshoot from a forum. Would
be easier to see if one could "get their hands on" the particular machine and software
being used.
There are difinite do's and don'ts on W2K versus XP. Even with SP4, W2K won't enable
48 bit LBA automatically so if you have extended partitions and logical drives, you
may not see them, or may/can corrupt them. On the other hand, you can enable 48
bit LBA in W2K and they should come back but, it is always a gamble at best so one
should always back up the data or move it off the drive(s) until W2K and SP's are
installed and 48 bit LBA enabled. Then you can recreate the extended partitions
and drives, move your data back on. Otherwise, you may well have issues. Slipstreaming
SP 4 into a new install CD helps, but you still have to enable 48 bit LBA in the
registry before you try to work beyond the 137 gig barrier in W2K. It isn't the
same for XP SP1/2. MS enabled 48 bit LBA on install in SP1 and 2 for XP.
That said, you can do some "hacking" in the install registry for W2K so that 48 bit
LBA is enabled on installation if you want and have the experience. That probably
would help you on the dissappearing partitions/logical drive problem for W2K IME...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q305/0/98.asp&NoWebContent=1
And this discussion for modifying W2K and making a new install CD to see drives bigger
than 137 gig when installing W2K:
http://msfn.modrica.com/board/lofiversion/index.php/t75713.html
There are ther guides for modifying W2K setup to recognize large disks if you Google
for it.
48bitLBA.com has info to I believe, but not an anser to install W2K and have it recognize
disks correctly from the installer. MS could have made this small change and added
it into SP3 and 4 but didn't. :-( Maybe for the fact that older BIOs' may not support
it anyway.. Who knows??
On Monday, April 21, 2008 at 6:02 pm, Dave wrote:
>
>As always, thank you fine gents of Annoyances.org,
>
>Consider that over. I decided for fresh W2K, and that is what brought me never seen
>enigma. Prior of that, I've (Always use this Boot CD) used Bart PE boot disk to
backup
>some important things and setups. So I did. But after W2K was finished, I can no
>longer access 2 particular partitions! They appear as uknown file system!
>
>But XP SP2, normally presents those two partitions and even more so, I can use then
>as I did before. Both NTFS to be exact. Tried all usual chkdsk routines, but really
>can't quite grasp why W2K no longer can access them. He makes them visible, but
you
>can use them.
>
>I don't like this, doesn't sound reliable, and all those partitions where originally
>made with W2K.
>
>Please advise? Do I transfer all files to another drives, then again reformat those
>partitions and return data back for w2k to see those files again? Why is it that
>W2K no longer can use those?
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Svchost vague
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 11:19 am
Posted by Dave
(53 messages posted)
Thanks again CK,
Strangely how routine things sometime go into air, when occupied with other affairs.
Indeed, you make a great point about 48-bit issue. Needles to say, completely forgot
to path that obligatory routine in fresh W2K. I’m switching for WS2003, like the
environment and mostly have developer guarantee drivers for my work gear would be
supported for next 5 years. Besides, strikes me as most enjoyable after my beloved
W2K.
As for NTFS episode…
I’ve used :
chkdsk /i /c /v /r x: and then : chkdsk /x /v /r x:
(Indexing was put to sleep)
This sorted (for now) everything.
As for your question. 2 drives, 250GB each. Problematic partition is 172GB and other
less then 100GB. Ironically each on different drive.
----------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 9:01 am, C K wrote:
>What size is the HDD and how/what size(s) is it partitioned in? If you are dealing
>with a 48 bit LBA issue which was active on the partitions and you reinstalled W2K,
>you well may not be able to see the extended partitions. XP with at least SP1 will
>be able to see them on install.
>
>Not so much a reliablity issue as one of dealing with an old operating system on
>newer hardware maybe. Many things are difficult to troubleshoot from a forum.
Would
>be easier to see if one could "get their hands on" the particular machine and software
>being used.
>
>There are difinite do's and don'ts on W2K versus XP. Even with SP4, W2K won't enable
>48 bit LBA automatically so if you have extended partitions and logical drives,
you
>may not see them, or may/can corrupt them. On the other hand, you can enable 48
>bit LBA in W2K and they should come back but, it is always a gamble at best so one
>should always back up the data or move it off the drive(s) until W2K and SP's are
>installed and 48 bit LBA enabled. Then you can recreate the extended partitions
>and drives, move your data back on. Otherwise, you may well have issues. Slipstreaming
>SP 4 into a new install CD helps, but you still have to enable 48 bit LBA in the
>registry before you try to work beyond the 137 gig barrier in W2K. It isn't the
>same for XP SP1/2. MS enabled 48 bit LBA on install in SP1 and 2 for XP.
>
>That said, you can do some "hacking" in the install registry for W2K so that 48
bit
>LBA is enabled on installation if you want and have the experience. That probably
>would help you on the dissappearing partitions/logical drive problem for W2K IME...
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q305/0/98.asp&NoWebContent=1
>
>And this discussion for modifying W2K and making a new install CD to see drives
bigger
>than 137 gig when installing W2K:
>
>http://msfn.modrica.com/board/lofiversion/index.php/t75713.html
>
>There are ther guides for modifying W2K setup to recognize large disks if you Google
>for it.
>
>48bitLBA.com has info to I believe, but not an anser to install W2K and have it
recognize
>disks correctly from the installer. MS could have made this small change and added
>it into SP3 and 4 but didn't. :-( Maybe for the fact that older BIOs' may not
support
>it anyway.. Who knows??
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
