Camaleón 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 wanted to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:00:15 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón 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
>>>
Camaleón 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, so shouldn't
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 h
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:32:35 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón 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
>> http://www.novell.com/support/viewC
Camaleón 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
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:
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\
=pwd&u=14
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.
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
>
> :)
>
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
- Original Message -
From: "Petr [Dingo] Dvorak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian-User"
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, &#
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
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 g
> 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
%% 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> p
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 data
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 yo
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Michael Soulier wrote:
MS> > netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 ' 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 dead
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 Li
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:45:46PM -0500, Petr [Dingo] Dvorak wrote:
>
> netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 ' 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 Un
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
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 would be much more efficient, right?
'killall' is a very dangerous command to
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 which
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 , 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 l
"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.
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 w
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 th
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
"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 abo
> "Petr" == Petr Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petr> netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 ' 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.
L
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 would be much more efficient, r
"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 would be much more efficient, right?
> True unkillable zombies are rather rare.
Usually, it's pretty difficult; ev
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
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 prevente
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), whic
'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
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.
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 wh
to kill xserver try ctrl+alt+backspace
works for me!
jd?
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 h
41 matches
Mail list logo
