Why both procfs and procstat don't show complete command line of the process?

2010-05-07 Thread Yuri
I have the process running, I know it has been supplied with many command line arguments. Yet, both 'cat /proc/pid/cmdline' and 'procstat -c pid' only show it's bare name, no arguments. How can I see the full command line? Yuri ___

Re: Why both procfs and procstat don't show complete command line of

2010-05-07 Thread osp
I have the process running, I know it has been supplied with many command line arguments. Yet, both 'cat /proc/pid/cmdline' and 'procstat -c pid' only show it's bare name, no arguments. How can I see the full command line? did you try the ps command? Many options to tailor its output.

Re: Core file output directory, writeable directories and procfs

2008-05-19 Thread Wojciech Puchar
/var move /usr/local/etc to /etc/local and make link from /etc/local to /usr/local/etc then you can have /usr readonly ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send

Core file output directory, writeable directories and procfs

2008-05-18 Thread stonee
that the procfs provides additional information about the system's running processes. What are the benefits and disadvantages to using this file system? It appears that the FreeBSD 7.0 Release does not enable procfs by default. Why would someone want to enable this feature? stonee

Re: Core file output directory, writeable directories and procfs

2008-05-18 Thread Norbert Papke
On May 18, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the rules dictating where core files are output? Is there a way to setup an output directory? The sysctl(8) MIB controls core file generation. See core(5) for more information. To specify a particular location for your core files, you might

Truss and procfs

2008-01-26 Thread n j
Hello everyone, just a short question regarding truss - I did some googling and found a reference to a conversation with proposed (working?) patch to eliminate dependency on procfs. That was in April 2007: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070574.html Does anybody

Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Fernando Apesteguía
Hi all, First of all, Happy New Year. I have a question about porting an application from Linux to FreeBSD. The application I want to port, makes an extensive use of the procfs in Linux. It gathers a lot of information from those files (cpuinfo, meminfo, devices, filesystems, modules, etc

Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Robert Huff
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= writes: First of all, Happy New Year. And to you, The application I want to port, makes an extensive use of the procfs in Linux. It gathers a lot of information from those files (cpuinfo, meminfo, devices, filesystems, modules, etc

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Ivan Voras
Fernando Apesteguía wrote: 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from FreeBSD 2 - Do the things in a completely different way (which one is this? Invoking sysctl system call?) I would like to know from you which one is the best approach. The best way to do

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Fernando Apesteguía
On Jan 3, 2008 2:47 PM, Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fernando Apesteguía wrote: 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from FreeBSD 2 - Do the things in a completely different way (which one is this? Invoking sysctl system call?) I would like to know from you

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Ivan Voras
On 03/01/2008, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, that's my problem. In Linux I can get from /proc/cpuinfo for example: name, model, stepping, cache size, clock speed, supported extensions, etc... But using sysctl in FreeBSD (sysctl -a) I can only see name and vendor for the

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Hi all, First of all, Happy New Year. I have a question about porting an application from Linux to FreeBSD. The application I want to port, makes an extensive use of the procfs in Linux. It gathers a lot

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:16:42PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: On 03/01/2008, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, that's my problem. In Linux I can get from /proc/cpuinfo for example: name, model, stepping, cache size, clock speed, supported extensions, etc... But using

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Patrick Lamaiziere
Le Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:14:57 +0100, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : As I know, FreeBSD has some kind of procfs but more limited in terms of information. My questions is how should I proceed now? I see two options. 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from

FreeBSD procfs: fd information is missing?

2007-11-07 Thread Yuri
In Linux /proc/PID/fd/FD is a link to the file corresponding to FD opened by process with process id PID. But in FreeBSD I don't see /proc/PID/fd at all. How can I get the corresponding to FD file? Thanks, Yuri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org

Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one?

2007-10-17 Thread Yuri
in procfs interface to the process information? In addition Linux has /proc/self/ link which is named curproc in FreeBSD. Isn't it better to have the same interface across the systems? Tyanks, Yuri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http

Re: Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one?

2007-10-17 Thread Jonathan Chen
root stat statm status Why there's such a difference in procfs interface to the process information? In addition Linux has /proc/self/ link which is named curproc in FreeBSD. Isn't it better to have the same interface across the systems? Maybe. Why don't you get the Linux guys to change

Re: Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one?

2007-10-17 Thread Josh Paetzel
exe fd maps mem mounts root stat statm status Why there's such a difference in procfs interface to the process information? In addition Linux has /proc/self/ link which is named curproc in FreeBSD. Isn't it better to have the same interface across the systems? Maybe

Re: Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one?

2007-10-17 Thread James
rlimit status and in Linux: cmdline cpu cwd environ exe fd maps mem mounts root stat statm status Why there's such a difference in procfs interface to the process information? In addition Linux has /proc/self/ link which is named curproc in FreeBSD

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:22:03 +0100 RW wrote: On Wednesday 30 August 2006 21:55, Gerard Seibert wrote: RW wrote: What's the canonical way of mounting the Linux procfs at boot-time? I've seen several recommendations to add the following to fstab: linproc/compat/linux/proc

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread Gerard Seibert
' here? BTW, are you also attempting to load 'proc'? // fstab // [...] proc /proc procfsrw 00 // * // -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Think about it: The *average* American has one tit and one testicle. ___ freebsd-questions

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread RW
On Thursday 31 August 2006 10:09, Boris Samorodov wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:22:03 +0100 RW wrote: Can't confirm that the problem exists: $ uname -a FreeBSD srv.sem.ipt.ru 6.1-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #2: Wed May 17 23:26:59 MSD 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SRV i386

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Thursday 31 August 2006 10:09, Boris Samorodov wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:22:03 +0100 RW wrote: Can't confirm that the problem exists: $ uname -a FreeBSD srv.sem.ipt.ru 6.1-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #2: Wed May 17 23:26:59 MSD 2006 [EMAIL

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:44:39 +0100 RW wrote: On Thursday 31 August 2006 10:09, Boris Samorodov wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:22:03 +0100 RW wrote: Can't confirm that the problem exists: $ uname -a FreeBSD srv.sem.ipt.ru 6.1-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #2: Wed May 17 23:26:59 MSD 2006

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread RW
procfs rw 0 0 linprocfs /compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw0 0 /dev/ad4s1a / ufs rw 1 1 /dev/ad4s1g /home ufs rw 2 2 /dev/ad4s1e /tmpufs

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread Boris Samorodov
0 /dev/ad6s1b.bde noneswapsw 0 0 proc/proc procfs rw 0 0 linprocfs /compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw0 0 Move this line down and place it after mounting of /usr. /dev/ad4s1a

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-31 Thread RW
On Thursday 31 August 2006 22:12, Boris Samorodov wrote: Move this line down and place it after mounting of /usr. Thanks. That was actually one of the first things I tried, I guess I must have screwed-up something else at the time. ___

Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-30 Thread RW
What's the canonical way of mounting the Linux procfs at boot-time? I've seen several recommendations to add the following to fstab: linproc/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0 But in a standard installation, this mount-point is really under /usr, which isn't mounted until pass 2

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-30 Thread Gerard Seibert
RW wrote: What's the canonical way of mounting the Linux procfs at boot-time? I've seen several recommendations to add the following to fstab: linproc/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0 But in a standard installation, this mount-point is really under /usr, which isn't

Re: Mounting Linux Procfs at Boot

2006-08-30 Thread RW
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 21:55, Gerard Seibert wrote: RW wrote: What's the canonical way of mounting the Linux procfs at boot-time? I've seen several recommendations to add the following to fstab: linproc/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0 But in a standard

Re: truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-27 Thread Proniewski Patrick
On 26 janv. 06, at 23:33, Dan Nelson wrote: in that case, the command issued as a truss argument (ls, ...) is stuck in state D. `man ps` says it Marks a process in disk (or other short term, uninterruptible) wait. these process wont be killed, I'll have to reboot. (procctl won't clear the

truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-26 Thread Proniewski Patrick
Hello, I experience a strange problem with truss on FreeBSD 5.4 p8 : $ truss ls truss: cannot open /proc/4509/mem: No such file or directory $ truss ls truss: PIOCWAIT: Input/output error of course, PROCFS is mounted : $ df procfs Filesystem 1K

Re: truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-26 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jan 26), Proniewski Patrick said: I experience a strange problem with truss on FreeBSD 5.4 p8 : $ truss ls truss: cannot open /proc/4509/mem: No such file or directory $ truss ls truss: PIOCWAIT: Input/output error The child process probably

Re: truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-26 Thread Proniewski Patrick
ktrace truss ls - fail most of the time truss `which ls` - works great. I have no idea why the PIOCWAIT ioctl would fail like that neither have I... In fact, the 128 items limitation of my procfs puzzles me even more. thanks Patrick PRONIEWSKI -- Administrateur Système - SENTIER - Université

Re: truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-26 Thread Proniewski Patrick
I have some new details : $ truss ls truss: cannot open /proc/4509/mem: No such file or directory in that case, the command issued as a truss argument (ls, ...) is stuck in state D. `man ps` says it Marks a process in disk (or other short term, uninterruptible) wait.

Re: truss and procfs strange problem.

2006-01-26 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jan 26), Proniewski Patrick said: I have some new details : $ truss ls truss: cannot open /proc/4509/mem: No such file or directory in that case, the command issued as a truss argument (ls, ...) is stuck in state D. `man ps` says it Marks a process in disk (or

re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-24 Thread martinko
hi, i've been wondering long time what's the actual state of procfs in freebsd. yes, i added procfs line to fstab but i do not mount it automatically at system startup. yet i'm still able to use ps(1) unlike the originator of this thread. how come? i believe i've read somewhere that (use

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-24 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:50:47PM +0200, martinko wrote: hi, i've been wondering long time what's the actual state of procfs in freebsd. yes, i added procfs line to fstab but i do not mount it automatically at system startup. yet i'm still able to use ps(1) unlike the originator

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-22 Thread Tobias Fendin
Chris Radlinski wrote: I should have procfs. However, my /proc directory is empty. What gives? You have to mount it. Add this line to /etc/fstab: proc/proc procfs rw 0 0 And then run: mount /proc You might also check out the man-page: procfs(9) //Tobias

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-22 Thread Vizion
On Saturday 21 May 2005 21:56, the author Chris Radlinski contributed to the dialogue on procfs in 5.4: I'm running 5.4 Release. Whenever I run 'ps -ef' I get this message: ps: Process environment requires procfs(5) My kernel config contains these two lines: options PROCFS

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-22 Thread Chris Radlinski
That fixed it. Thanks. Chris Tobias Fendin wrote: You have to mount it. Add this line to /etc/fstab: proc/proc procfs rw 0 0 And then run: mount /proc You might also check out the man-page: procfs(9) //Tobias

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-22 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:56:30PM -0500, Chris Radlinski wrote: I'm running 5.4 Release. Whenever I run 'ps -ef' I get this message: ps: Process environment requires procfs(5) My kernel config contains these two lines: options PROCFS # Process filesystem

Re: procfs in 5.4

2005-05-22 Thread Chris Radlinski
That was it. Thanks. Chris On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 12:26 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:56:30PM -0500, Chris Radlinski wrote: I'm running 5.4 Release. Whenever I run 'ps -ef' I get this message: ps: Process environment requires procfs(5) My kernel config

procfs in 5.4

2005-05-21 Thread Chris Radlinski
I'm running 5.4 Release. Whenever I run 'ps -ef' I get this message: ps: Process environment requires procfs(5) My kernel config contains these two lines: options PROCFS # Process filesystem (requires PSEUDOFS) options PSEUDOFS# Pseudo

Re: PROCFS

2004-08-18 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 10:08 PM -0700 8/17/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:14:06PM -0700, Dennis George wrote: Hi all, Can I disable PROCFS (through kernel configuration[sysctl/GENERIC] ) in freeBSD Yes. It's clear from the GENERIC config how to do this (remove the entry

PROCFS

2004-08-17 Thread Dennis George
Hi all, Can I disable PROCFS (through kernel configuration[sysctl/GENERIC] ) in freeBSD If yes then what will the effect of this ??? I mean to say that, do we really need the PROCFS ? If I disable it will I get any improvement in system performance in terms of speed ? Dennis

Re: PROCFS

2004-08-17 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:14:06PM -0700, Dennis George wrote: Hi all, Can I disable PROCFS (through kernel configuration[sysctl/GENERIC] ) in freeBSD Yes. It's clear from the GENERIC config how to do this (remove the entry)). If yes then what will the effect of this ??? I mean

Determining which jail a process is running in without procfs

2003-09-10 Thread Pat Lashley
I have a system running 5.1-RELEASE-p2 with several jails. Occasionally I want to determine which jail a given process belongs to. On -STABLE I could just cat /proc/pid/status and look at the final entry. But with 5.x procfs id deprecated; so I'd like to find some other way. Any help would

No /proc or procfs by default in 5.1-RELEASE ... why ?

2003-07-16 Thread Josh Brooks
Hello, As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for a procfs. Is this by design ? Is it better to not run /proc on 5.x ? What are the consequences of running without a procfs on 5.x

Re: No /proc or procfs by default in 5.1-RELEASE ... why ?

2003-07-16 Thread Ruben de Groot
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:42:49PM -0700, Josh Brooks typed: Hello, As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for a procfs. Is this by design ? Yes Is it better to not run /proc