<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Subject: Re: cipe-win32 service fails to start
From: Rob Nelson <rnelson,AT,internoc,DOT,net>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:24:49 -0600 (CST)
Cc: <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
In-reply-to: <200312091717.53378.dwilson@ibl.bm>

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Damion Wilson wrote:

> Before running "cipsrvr console", make sure that there are no other
> cipsrvr.exe's running and make sure that the local UDP host:port in your
> configuration is not actively being used by any other service or process on
> the box. To be sure, you could set the local host part to be 0.0.0.0

yep pretty thoroughly determined there are no other processes with that
port (the box is mostly just for doing tests & repairs)

I just now tried on the even more arbitrary port 18254 same messages

And mind you all, I have tried setting the service to manual and disabled,
and tried to start it manually in all permutations of the strat that I can
see. All result in the unable to bind to socket/ start daemon message, and
subsequent (or prior) cipsrvr stop results in "service already stopped"
message (even though we _know_ it is not running.

>
> If it still proves elusive and you want to build it yourself, you'll need 
> VC++
> 6.0, The Windows NT or 2000 SDK, and the Windows NT or 2000  DDK. Those last
> two used to be downloadable but can only now be ordered on CD. Minimally, 
> you
> can compile just cipsrvr.exe with VCC 6.0 from within its source directory 
> by
> typing "nmake". If there are any bits missing, then I can email them to you.
>

Thanks, Damion. I will hunt down the kits, and try again. I kind of guess
that whoever it was that has had this problem (I saw the same output
posted to the sf website) must have given up. I, on the other hand, can
reboot windows with both hands tied behind my back........

Are there any known issues with Service pack levels, driver/service
incompatibilities? Maybe microsoft has decided to personally persecute me?

For now, I must assume the latter. It seems the only logical explanation.


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]