On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:00:15 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot.
But maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I
cannot find it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
How did you run the firefox process, from a console?
I don't really remember for sure, but the ps wwaux output mentioned a
forum on the winamp web pages so I was probably reading the forum.
:-)
Maybe is that I did not express myself correctly... I
I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start
firefox I'm told its already running.
ps wwaux reveals:
(all on one line - wrapped for mail)
reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \
31:58 /usr/bin/firefox http://forums.winamp.com/login.php?a\
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:38:23 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start
firefox I'm told its already running.
ps wwaux reveals:
(all on one line - wrapped for mail)
reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \ 31:58
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
Ds+ means the process is:
D → uninterruptible sleep (usually IO)
s → session leader
+ → run in foreground
So some kind of evil process firefox is involved in.
as root:
# kill -KILL 2617
But again `ps wwaux' reveals the same line.
How does
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:32:35 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
(...)
How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a
signal 9?
This is what Google gives:
Processes in an Uninterruptible Sleep (D) State
On 10/19/2011 09:38 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start
firefox I'm told its already running.
ps wwaux reveals:
(all on one line - wrapped for mail)
reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \
31:58 /usr/bin/firefox
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot. But
maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I cannot find
it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no instances of firefox at
all. Allegedly it is in the foreground,
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:38:55PM -0700, Eric G. Miller (egm2@jps.net) wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:23:13AM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700):
No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be
scrambled. I
on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:31:26PM -0500, Andrei Ivanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then
unkillable
processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down
properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes
Karsten M. Self wrote:
I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then
try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9.
killall -9 program name would be much more efficient, right?
True unkillable zombies are rather rare.
Usually, it's pretty
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:33:45AM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Karsten M. Self wrote:
I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then
try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9.
killall -9 program name would be much more
Petr == Petr Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Petr netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid
Petr of them, signal 9 is not maskable.
My experience, there are only two ways of killing netscape:
1. from netscape or the window manager close function.
2. kill -9.
Last I
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces.
Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to
be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean
I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:11:48PM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces.
Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to
be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 11:29 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be
scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server.
I second this one from personal experience! Very bad... lucky I did it before
I actually started working with the
Oki DZ wrote:
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces.
Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to
be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean
I think Unix designers were having
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:11:48PM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
...
BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit?
I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the
machine, rebooting was the only option.
you
on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Oki DZ wrote:
...
Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail.
BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit?
I was thinking about it, but since I was remote
IIRC this is a know issue with kernel 2.4.3.
D process can't be killed : D mean UNinterruptible sleep and kill send a
signal which wake-up target process if they are in an interruptible state..
Upgrade to 2.4.4 even if there is some drawbacks with it (there's a fork
issue), or wait for 2.4.5
Oki DZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karsten M. Self wrote:
I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then
try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9.
killall -9 program name would be much more efficient, right?
'killall' is a very dangerous command
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
| Oki DZ wrote:
...
| I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to
| the OS, right?
|
| AFAIK the OS takes care of all/most of the resources - file are closed
| (but not saved), memory is released etc... if
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:45:46PM -0500, Petr [Dingo] Dvorak wrote:
netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them,
signal 9 is not maskable.
But if the process is blocked on an uninterruptable system call, it will
never return to receive the signal. This is a known
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:28:44AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Since you're probably root at the time you're doing this sort of thing,
you'll find yourself with an unusable system.
For that reason, I always advise people to forget that killall exists,
even if it's a handy short cut on Linux.
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Michael Soulier wrote:
MS netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them,
MS signal 9 is not maskable.
MS
MS But if the process is blocked on an uninterruptable system call, it will
MS never return to receive the signal. This is a known Unix
also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500):
scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00
/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin
this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead
process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. there is no way you
also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700):
No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be
scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server.
one of the reasons why i wouldn't run mysql for any reason in the
world! unless you don't need a true
%% MaD dUCK [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
md also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500):
scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00
/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin
md this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead
md process,
also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500):
scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00
/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin
this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead
process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. there is no
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
doesn't take long). IIRC one reason an application is zombie is that its
parent waits for return value (which is sort of held by zombie, waitin
for parent to process the info or something like that).
You've got it backwards. You get
On Wed, 23 May 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500):
scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00
/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin
this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead
I believe this was
Message -
From: Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian-User debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: Unkillable process
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Michael Soulier wrote:
MS netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of
them,
MS
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:23:13AM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700):
No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be
scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server.
one of the reasons why i wouldn't run mysql
If you don't keep an eye out, the penguins WILL kill without regard to
humanity! Always watch the penguins, always. . .
On Wednesday 23 May 2001 16:11, Tomaas Ortega wrote:
Is it just me or does it all sound like we are getting involved in some
mass slaughter of children and parents
:)
'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then
unkillable
processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down
properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it
runs), which prevented me running xemacs again as that user. Now it's
mozilla .9. I
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:31:26PM -0500, Andrei Ivanov wrote:
'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then
unkillable
processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down
properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it
runs), which
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Andrei Ivanov wrote:
AI 'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then
AI unkillable
AI processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down
AI properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it
AI runs), which prevented me
In case anyone is interested, I figured out why I couldn't list the PID
of the app (Wine/Agent) that crashed my X server. I had logged out of
the original console from which I started X, and it seems that when I
do that, the PIDs of some of the processes associated with X will no
longer display
use ps x
the processes lost their controling termals. ps x shows them
so you will see ? instead of numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, David Densmore wrote:
In case anyone is interested, I figured out why I couldn't list the PID
of the app (Wine/Agent) that crashed my X server. I
I use Wine 0.0.980315-1 on my hamm system to run Forte's Agent newsreader,
which frequently crashes, locking up my X server. When this happens, I go
back to a console and use the ps a command to identify the PID then kill
it, which usually returns my system to normal.
Just a little while ago it
to kill xserver try ctrl+alt+backspace
works for me!
jd?
41 matches
Mail list logo
