-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, May 03, 2007 18:26:30 -0700 Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing you can do is drop into single user mode... kill all the > processes on the system, and see if the sockets are recovered. That > will give you a good idea as to whether it is a real leak or whether > some process is directly or indirectly (by not draining a unix domain > socket on which other sockets are being transfered) holding onto the > socket. *groan* why couldn't this be happening on a server that I have better remote access to? :( But, based on your explanation(s) above ... if I kill off all of the jail(s) on the machine, so that there are minimal processes running, shouldn't I see a significant drop in the number of sockets in use as well? or is there something special about single user mode vs just killing off all 'extra processes'? - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGOpeM4QvfyHIvDvMRAoppAJ9SNmIi+i2vDXEZzrpaVe74a3uKyQCfeMY7 z3lFWXEo111CL5peXvqqsCQ= =qxmO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
