From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C5A107.657BEAB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That makes a lot of sense for a normally running process, but if the =
process is screwed up or hogging the cpu, then things probably aren't =
working properly anyway so I'm not sure that would hold true in those =
cases where you need to terminate something.

The only case where I use it on a process that isn't screwed up is with =
smtp on a busy server. In that case a normal shutdown can take quite a =
few minutes which is just an unacceptable downtime for smtp so I use = kill
to get in shut down and started back up in just a few seconds. It's =
possible this could corrupt an email but that's better than having =
hundreds of people start calling because they can't use email.

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:42ffc164$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Killing doesn't allow a process to terminate gracefully.  Buffers =
may not be flushed.  Other processes with which it communicates may not =
get appropriate notice.  When you select end task from the applications =
tab it will send the app the appropriate notice for a graceful shutdown. =
 If you terminate the process from the processes tab you get an =
ungraceful termination.  NET STOP sends the graceful notice appropriate =
for services.

  Rich

    "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:42ff87b1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    I would guess net stop works fine for a test case, but usually I =
only kill processes that are hung and not responding, in those cases net =
stop is probably too polite.

    Why would you not just kill a process?

    Geo.
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:42ff743c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         I would do neither.  Have you tried "net stop spooler"?

      Rich

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C5A107.657BEAB0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








That makes a lot of sense for a =
normally running=20
process, but if the process is screwed up or hogging the cpu, then = things=20
probably aren't working properly anyway so I'm not sure that would hold = true in=20
those cases where you need to terminate something.
 
The only case where I use it on a =
process that=20
isn't screwed up is with smtp on a busy server. In that case a normal = shutdown=20
can take quite a few minutes which is just an unacceptable downtime for = smtp so=20
I use kill to get in shut down and started back up in just a few = seconds. It's=20
possible this could corrupt an email but that's better than having = hundreds of=20
people start calling because they can't use email.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:42ffc164$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Killing
doesn't allow a =
process to=20
  terminate gracefully.  Buffers may not be flushed.  Other =
processes=20
  with which it communicates may not get appropriate notice.  When =
you=20
  select end task from the applications tab it will send the app the =
appropriate=20
  notice for a graceful shutdown.  If you terminate the process =
from the=20
  processes tab you get an ungraceful termination.  NET STOP sends =
the=20
  graceful notice appropriate for services.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
    wrote in message news:42ff87b1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    I would guess net stop works fine =
for a test=20
    case, but usually I only kill processes that are hung and not =
responding, in=20
    those cases net stop is probably too polite.
     
    Why would you not just kill a=20
    process?
     
    Geo.
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:42ff743c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         I would do =
neither.  Have=20
      you tried "net stop spooler"?
       
      Rich
       

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C5A107.657BEAB0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5