search

aahnne04 / omaha

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/omaha
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 0 forks source link

updater should run as a scheduled task and not as a service #2

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Updater should run as a scheduled task and not as a service.

Running an application all the time is just bad.

The correct implementation is to run as a scheduled task (like crontab on
linux).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sorin.sb...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 10:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I think the "Run as User" portion of the scheduled tasks would be problematic 
for
something like this.

Original comment by story.ju...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 3:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
>Running an application all the time is just bad.

LOL. Seriously?

Ever heard of linux/unix daemons? 

This sounds more like a pet peave of sorin, than a defect.

Original comment by tri...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 4:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sir, I Agree.

Original comment by ese...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 4:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Running the updates should be possible in two possible ways: background mode 
(no user
intervention) and manual mode.

Running in the background implies that no user intervention is required (ever): 
this
is something that is working very well with Task Scheduler.

Example from the linux *side* "yum -y update" : is something that does work 
very well
with crontab.

Original comment by sorin.sb...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 5:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Background services, if done properly, have no measurable effect on the system. 

Google update is currently using 3MB of RAM on my system, 2MB of which is 
shared and 
most of the rest is swapped out.

As I understand it, if Task Scheduler is used it will require two 
implementations to 
support Win2K/XP (Task Scheduler 1.0, using ITaskScheduler) and Vista/7/2008 
(Task 
Scheduler 2.0, using ITaskService).

In addition, the Task Scheduler is itself a service, so I don't think you gain 
much 
by making use of it other than becoming tangled in the API and being beholden 
to 
whatever changes Microsoft decides to make for version 3.0.  Given that it's 
already 
working, I would vote to leave it as a stand-alone service.

I would however consider supporting a "shared" service (one that runs through 
svchost 
rather than as its own executable) since that would reduce the overhead even 
more.  I 
currently have one svchost instance hosting 17 separate system services and 
using 
only 8.5MB of private allocations.

Original comment by Codeben...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2009 at 6:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issue 4 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by ddor...@google.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 10:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issue 6 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by ddor...@google.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 10:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
As of version 1.2.183.7, Google Update uses the Task Scheduler instead of 
running all 
the time in most cases.

See http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-update-regularly-
scheduled.html for the announcement and 
http://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/GoogleUpdateOnAScheduleOverview for an 
overview of 
the design.

Original comment by ddor...@google.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 10:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I caught it running full-time again yesterday. I think the best option now is 
to just 
write a startup script that stops and deletes Google Update entirely whenever 
it 
manages to get reinstalled.

Original comment by dtfi...@gmail.com on 2 Feb 2010 at 11:22