Adding a description doesn't help me. But Corinna's thoughts sound viable. Given the specs (and overclock) on my machine, it's quite feasible that services without dependancies are being started too quickly. Unfortunately, I don't see a way (in 2K) to add a dependancy. Nor does TCP/IP exist as a service.
I'll look into it more at the office... Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:24:54AM -0500, Shawn Behrens wrote: > >>service called sshd (which already existed), so the sshd service now has a >>'Description'. I can't see that there were any other changes to the >>service; which doesn't mean there weren't any, of course, just that I >>can't see them. >> >>Could some of the gals and guys who have the same problem try adding a >>Description to the service via regedit, see whether it starts up then? >> > >What other people with problems starting these service can try is to >add a dependency to another service as e.g. tcpip. This could >positively influence the load order of the services. Perhaps they are >just started too early. > >>I do notice that while sshd has cygrunsrv as the executable, inetd lists >>itself (c:\cygwin\usr\sbin\inetd.exe) as the executable to be started as a >>service. Is this the way it's supposed to be? Shouldn't inetd also use >>cygrunsrv? >> > >Inetd has been ported many moons before cygrunsrv came to existence. >So it has the NT service handling code builtin. > >It's a good question, though. I'm not quite sure if we shouldn't >better revert these NT service stuff from inetd and use cygrunsrv >to start it. It's way cleaner a solution. > >Corinna > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
