On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Pete wrote: PW> Thank you Robert. When I finally thought to power-cycle the machine, PW> then snmpd behaved just as we'd expect. As you say, I must have PW> somehow gotten the kernel into a funny mode. PW> PW> I apologize for posting the question when the answer might have PW> become apparent with just a little time. I thought perhaps snmpd PW> daemonized itself in some special, super-secure, signal-proof secret PW> way; thus my posting.
I've been there myself, with other processes. Frustrating. The signal man pages states that SIGKILL (-9) and SIGSTOP cannot be caught nor ignored, so if a processes doesn't die on kill -9, something is really wrong. It does often create a core file, which can sometimes take some time. Usually when I've seen this there has been a NFS volume involved, with the NFS server not responding. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This Newsletter Sponsored by: Macrovision For reliable Linux application installations, use the industry's leading setup authoring tool, InstallShield X. Learn more and evaluate today. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSI/go/ins0030000001msi/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
