Taskrunner

Nescient Newbie Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 1 Location: SF

Can Taskrunner be ran on windows server 2003?

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:05 am

hhhmmm.... let's see. Confused

Well.... how 'bout you try that out and let me know. Big Smile

Seriously though... it's hasn't been tested on WS2003 (only because I don't have an install available to me), but WS2003 does support the .NET framework (quite heavily) and I can't think of many aspects of TR that wouldn't run the same on any .NET enabled platform. Maybe some of the built-in tasks (such as Shut-Down, Restart, etc) may not function, but then again, they may all work just fine.

Sorry I can't give you a definitive answer... TR was built more for desktop use (but obviously, it has possible server applications). I will keep this in mind for the next release... maybe I'll run it through some paces on a server install.

btw... if you do try it out on WS2003, let me know how it does. Cool

WATYF

Guest

Taskrunner does run on server 2003. I'm trying to run some batch files that use robocopy, and when I get an error through robocopy it's suppose to give me a job failed e-mail, but i keep getting job completed successfully. Do you know what could cause that?

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:22 pm

Right... I should probably change the wording of that feature to "fails to run"... not "fails to complete".

TR can only detect whether or not the executable you selected could be... well... executed. After that, since TR doesn't know what kind of executable you're running or what that executable is doing, it's impossible to tell if it "completed" successfully.

TR can detect when the built in actions fail to complete (because those actions are written into TR and errors can be handled directly), but outside of that, there are too many possibilities of what your executable could be doing and what you would consider "failing" for TR to handle it.

btw, when I have applications that perform specific tasks that can't be handled by TR, I usually build a complete/fail notification straight into that executable, so it can tell me itself if it fails.

...but you bring up a good point. I should change the way that's worded so people don't think TR is a heck of a lot smarter than it really is... Razz

and I can also consider ways how TR might be able to capture a bit more variable info from the batches it runs.

WATYF