![]() Process Monitor also shows you the call stack of the thread that lead to the file system / registry access. It logs all access to the file system / registry by all processes on the machine (can be filtered). Process Monitor is my favourate and it can be used to monitor file system / registry activity on a machine. Process Explorer can be used to investigate a running process from handles to dlls loaded. Hard Drives: 3x Samsung 980 Pro NVMe PCIe 4 M.Process Monitor and Process Explorer are great tools for troubleshooting issues on Windows machines. PSU: PC Power & Cooling’s Silencer Series 1050 Watt, 80 Plus PlatinumĬase: Fractal Design Define 7 XL Dark ATX Full Tower CaseĬooling: NZXT KRAKEN Z73 73.11 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler (3x 120 mm push top) + Air 3x 140mm case fans (pull fron Keyboard: SteelSeries Apex Pro Wired Gaming Keyboard Monitor(s) Displays: Eve Spectrum ES07D02 280 Hz QHD | Eve Spectrum ES07D03 4K Gaming Monitor Graphics Card: EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti XC3 ULTRA GAMING (12G-P5-3955-KR) System Manufacturer/Model Number: The Beast Mark A (homebrew) Github: GitHub - zodiacon/ProcMonX: Extended Process Monitor-like tool based on Event Tracing for Windows In my opinion, this could well be a great tool to add to the large list of tools that I keep handy for all sorts of analysis when I break something on my system (mostly stuff from Nir Sofer and SysInternals). With a wealth of information there is a necessity to be able to filter, find and analyze the results. ETW traces can be captured and analyzed with a myriad of tools, such as PerfView, Windows Performance Recorder / Analyzer, and others. This is naturally a work in progress, but it’s important to emphasize. Additionally, I am trying to get a comfortable and powerful UI to filter, view and inspect information. ETW has an inherent delay of one to three seconds when reporting events, which is not a big deal for this kind of tool, since the events are still ordered correctly and have correct enough time stamps (if using the same ETW session).Īll this means is that ProcMonX sacrifices some accuracy and in some cases pieces of information to get in exchange a huge arrange of events that could not be possible with ProcMon. Hooking with a driver is always more reliable and accurate. Is it better than using kernel drivers? Not generally. ![]() The event data is displayed as they come in. ProcMonX creates a real time session (no automatic logging to file) and registers for the events the user requests (the current list is small, more events will follow in subsequent versions). To get a sense of the number of providers use logman query providers in a command window. Windows provides many providers out of the box, each exposing a rich set of events. These events can be logged to a file (.ETL extension) and then analyzed, or alternatively logged in real time to listening consumers. In ETW, providers spit out events that ETW consumers consume. ProcMonX, on the other hand, uses Event Tracing for Windows (ETW), a diagnostics and logging mechanism that existed since Windows 2000. The upside to using a driver is the ability to get the most accurate data, since some form of hooking is involved. So why doesn’t ProcMon provide the same range of events? In fact, the number of possible events is staggering, since there are many events exposed by the NT kernel provider, and the tool could be expanded to include other providers. ProcMonX provides information on similar activities to ProcMon, but adds many more events, such as networking, ALPC and memory. Yesterday I released the first preview of a tool called Process Monitor X (ProcMonX), as a possible alternative to ProcMon. This tool helped me many times in diagnosing issues or just understanding what’s going on in a particular scenario. The (now classic) Process Monitor tool from Sysinternals allows watching important activities on a system: process and thread creation/termination, image loading/unloading, file system operations and registry operations (and some profiling events).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |