This website uses cookies. By clicking Accept, you consent to the use of cookies. Click Here to learn more about how we use cookies.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- Revenera Community
- :
- InstallAnywhere
- :
- InstallAnywhere Forum
- :
- Re: Can I prevent multiple install from running at same time?
Subscribe
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Aug 12, 2009
04:40 PM
Can I prevent multiple install from running at same time?
On windows platform, installer is just a executable file so user can double click the file and start a instance of a installer and start another instance by doing same thing. Does InstallAnywhere provide any support to prevent this?
(10) Replies
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Aug 13, 2009
05:27 PM
I'm not aware of InstallAnywhere supporting anythign like this. However, you may be able to use tasklist to see if is already running.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Aug 20, 2009
08:00 AM
Hi,
InstallAnywhere doesnt support the multipe instances with IA2009. This will be taken care with IA Future releases.
Thanks,
Indraneel
InstallAnywhere doesnt support the multipe instances with IA2009. This will be taken care with IA Future releases.
Thanks,
Indraneel
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Nov 25, 2009
07:14 AM
I wanted to block multiple installation/uninstallation to be blocked. This was the behavior with Installshield 11.5. But IA is allowing multiple installations/uninstallations to proceed at the same time causing many issues.
Please help
Please help
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Dec 17, 2009
10:29 AM
You can create custom action that will check if another instance of installer is started. Place it first in pre-install actions.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 26, 2010
07:14 AM
But how do we find an instance is already running? There is way to find the installer running using the installer's name in the task list. But this is not a solution at all!! The user can change the name of the installer and we are done. Any other thoughts on this?
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 26, 2010
10:08 AM
How about assuming the end-user is intelligent enough NOT to launch 2 installers and the same install and proceed with the installation with both of them at the same time?!? How often could this occur?!?
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 26, 2010
11:15 PM
hmmm. Valid point. It all depends upon the application that you are going to install. If you have services created and start/stop of those services, then you are going to face sever errors during install. Is there any other way atleast to find the existence of this another install process?
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 27, 2010
04:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the point between those two items (starting / stopping services & running 2 copies of the uninstallers). We have for instance an installer that installs services and uninstaller that uninstalls them... but I never ever considered a customer would run 2 installers / uninstallers at the same time...
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 28, 2010
12:00 AM
What you have said is correct. The end user will not even think about having two simultaneous installation. But there is a middleware between developers and end user's, Tester. We developers have to satisfy them before the product goes live(Joking).:rolleyes:
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 28, 2010
04:04 AM
Well, above all that dev & tester, there should be a manager. If you manage to convince him that you've got to put lotsa dev into contending those testers for what's an extremely improbable use case, then maybe you'll mange to put this away.
![](/skins/images/CC38E504FC9E1309DC48ACFEB4925670/responsive_peak/images/icon_anonymous_message.png)