> Jesse, > any ideas how it could be possible for process to be discovered by > ps(1), but not pidof(1)? >
I can think of a few possibilities, though they seem unlikely. One is that the process could be crashing and restarting, making it a zombie for brief periods of time. Testing pidof with the "-z" flag would fill in the "holes" in the test output if that theory is correct. Alternatively, if the executable is on a remote network share, like NFS, that might explain the gaps. While it doesn't explain the gaps in output, I am curious if the gaps also appear if the pidof test is run without the "-s" flag. So instead of "pidof -s apcupsd" what happens if you run "pidof -z apcupsd"? - Jesse
