Eugen Podsypalnikov wrote:

Please compare also: Start -> DCOMCNFG -> Componen Services (?) -> Computer -> Workstation -> ContextMenu -> Properties(Settings?) -> COM Security & Other pages there.

This absolutely worked! Someone on the server made some settings on the specific application properties -> identity tab that a specific user's account will be used to launch the application instead of the launching user. Thank you very much! :)

Hi Eugen, I have checked the registry and as with the Singleton or SingleUse, there is none. I also checked the code and there is also none of DECLARE_CLASSFACTORY_SINGLETON. The thing is, the code works on other environment except for this one machine that we have. I am checking the way the thread in the application is being created. Seems to have something to do with CoInitialize on whether the application should be as an apartment thread or multithread. Anyway I'm gonna follow that lead first.. Thank you for your help!

Hi Eugen! Thanks for your reply. I am currently comparing both the register of both machines, and the difference is really big right now (used compare tool on the saved registry settings). Might I know what specific settings should I look for or compare? Thanks again!

Hi! So I have posted this question a while back but has some additional information since I am still stuck on this problem. Here is what is supposed to happen on a server: 1) SQL Server receives request from a client 2) SQL Extended procedure launches DLL 3) Launcher DLL launches Server EXE 4) Server EXE executes Server DLL attached to it to process command Now testing this on my environment (Windows XP Service Pack 3, Core 2 DUO @2.33GHz, 2GB of RAM) and another test server (Windows Server 2003 R2 Service Pack 2, Xeon CPU @3.0GHz, 3GB of RAM) by triggering the request event (from #1) 2x simultaneously works. The request is being handled in parallel by the server. I can see that there are different instances of Server EXE (#3) being created per request. The problem is with another server environment that we have (Windows Server 2003 R2 Service Pack 2, Xeon CPU @2.5GHz, 3GB of RAM). No matter what happens, there is always 1 Server EXE being created (checked this through Process Explorer by Sysinternals) and for the next requests received, the machine just adds a new thread on the same existing Server EXE process (checked this through logs, GetCurrentProcessId and GetCurrentThreadId APIs). This is a problem, since there is only 1 Server EXE, that means that all threads are also sharing the attached Server DLL to it. Making the requests being processed sequentially instead of in parallel. I have read about this and it seems to be a multi-tenant behavior on the machine but I don't know why the machine behaves that way. Anyone has any idea/clue on this problem? I'm on a dead-end right now. Thanks! Note: As an additional information, in Launcher DLL (in #3), here is an overview of the code being executed when called: HRESULT hr = ::CoInitialize(NULL); //initialize COM Library . . ServerEXEPtr ptrServerEXE; //Server EXE object instance hr = ptrServerEXE.CreateInstance(__uuidof(ServerEXEPtr)); //Create instance of Server EXE . . ptrServerEXE->ExecuteServerCommand(param); //Will call Server EXE's method ptrServerEXE.Release(); . . ::CoUninitialize();

I have checked the SQL connection and the setting was 6. Then looking at the log files, the actual queuing up happens when the DLL's first function is called (way after the SQL connection/process is being triggered). The other DLL stops/waits until the first DLL is done. It is highly likely that they're using the same resource... but any possibility that this is somehow the DLL's loading being queued up?

Hello, I have an exe which launches a DLL inside a thread (using CreateInstance) that does some SQL process (retreive, update of data, etc.). Then this exe is launched by some trigger event which is asynchronous. Now testing this on my environment (Windows XP Service Pack 3, Core 2 DUO @2.33GHz, 2GB of RAM) by triggering the event 2x simultaneously absolutely works. I can see in the log files I've created that the 2 DLL instance are processing in parallel. The problem is with another server environment that we have (Windows Server 2003 R2 Service Pack 2, Xeon CPU @2.5GHz, 3GB of RAM). When I check the log files, up to the actual launch of the DLL was done simultaneously. But when it came to the DLLs, they seem to be working sequentially. After the 1st DLL is done (which is after 10 mins), then that is the time that the 2nd DLL starts in processing... Anyone has any idea/clue on this problem? I'm on a dead-end right now. Thanks!

What language? Try Babelfish[^]. :)

Once again the new iPod[^] lineup was introduced. Having bought the fat nano last year, it just feels like Apple is constantly making your product obsolete the moment you buy it. I bet another lineup will be coming by next year. I love my fat nano though. :) Oh well, that's business.

Use the Death Note :)

Unless the flu is so bad. I'd go fix the bug then just rest the next day. Can't really rest at home if there's those kind of problems bugging me, so might as well get it done as early as possible. :)

Must Start Documenting Now!!! :-D

Anand Desai wrote:

My screen was full of NotePads.... n kept comming every 100 miliseconds!!!! until I restarted.

:laugh: It's the revenge of the notepads because you've been spending too much time with your insert dev env name here. ;P

benjymous wrote:

Bob's so independent he's emitting photons

Oh.. so he's Bob huh.. too much Zima perhaps..

1. Spirited Away 2. Butterfly Effect 3. Meet the Robinsons 4. Lord of the Rings 5. The Game :)

Steve Mayfield wrote:

the Code Project tribute to 4th of July...ranks right up there with the Google doodles.... [Cool]

right about that.. maybe because of the glow effect.. who or what do you think the code project mascot's modeled from? Not one of the CP guys/gals I hope.. :)

Adnan Siddiqi wrote:

8 millions copies![^]

The Soapbox - off-topic rants discussions. Are you ranting about this? :confused:

jgasm wrote:

i was just curious why they said "allegedly" is it because they can't say? i just didn't know.

I think the writer is just protecting himself/herself since they weren't the one's who actually found them that's why they used "allegedly". If they don't use that and the police are proven wrong, its libel for them. It's a normal practice in reports like that.

Christian Graus wrote:

but it's top of my list of things to do when I hit the US in a few days

Good for you. Here in Japan it's still after a few months. Even Iron Man isn't gonna be shown here until September. :sigh:

Michael Schubert wrote:

You mean to -20? I was not aware that negative IQs are possible.

yeah its possible.. but be careful though.. it doesnt understand negative numbers... :) it might get confused...

peterchen wrote:

How does RAR compare to 7zip?

I wasn't really aware of 7zip until today :) so it's been RAR for me since then.