On December 3, 2004 08:17 am, Vincent Béron wrote:
> Le ven 03/12/2004 à 10:15, Bill Medland a écrit :
> > On December 2, 2004 10:43 pm, Mike McCormack wrote:
> > > Kenneth Porter wrote:
> > > >> The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and
> > > >> later.
> > > >
> > > > Runn
Le ven 03/12/2004 à 10:15, Bill Medland a écrit :
> On December 2, 2004 10:43 pm, Mike McCormack wrote:
> > Kenneth Porter wrote:
> > >> The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and
> > >> later.
> > >
> > > Running 2.6.8-1.521smp on Fedora Core 2.
> >
> > When I say Linux 2.6
On December 2, 2004 10:43 pm, Mike McCormack wrote:
> Kenneth Porter wrote:
> >> The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and
> >> later.
> >
> > Running 2.6.8-1.521smp on Fedora Core 2.
>
> When I say Linux 2.6.8 fixes the bug, I mean the standard kernel shipped
> by Linus.
Kenneth Porter wrote:
The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and later.
Running 2.6.8-1.521smp on Fedora Core 2.
When I say Linux 2.6.8 fixes the bug, I mean the standard kernel shipped
by Linus. I've got no idea what Redhat does, and they tend to apply
alot of patches t
--On Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:15 PM -0500 James Hawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does 'kill -9 processnum' not work?
Son of a gun, that did it. I'm so used to avoiding that that it didn't
occur to me to try it.
--On Friday, December 03, 2004 3:18 PM +0900 Mike McCormack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and later.
Running 2.6.8-1.521smp on Fedora Core 2.
How can kill -9 not work? It should kill the process without question
unless I'm wrong.
I think this is a kernel bug that was fixed in more recent kernels.
The bug present in Linux 2.6.[0-7] and is fixed in Linux 2.6.8 and later.
Mike
Hi,
--- James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Probably not.
> > I regularly face them and the only way I know is to reboot
>
> How can kill -9 not work? It should kill the process without question
> unless I'm wrong.
I think this is a kernel bug that was fixed in more recent kernels.
Th
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:28:01 -0800, Bill Medland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On December 2, 2004 08:15 pm, James Hawkins wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:01:48 -0800, Kenneth Porter
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've now got several instances of "[wine-preloader] " in my ps
> > >
On December 2, 2004 08:15 pm, James Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:01:48 -0800, Kenneth Porter
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've now got several instances of "[wine-preloader] " in my ps
> > listing from a game server that's died in some strange way. Anyone have
> > experience in cle
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:01:48 -0800, Kenneth Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've now got several instances of "[wine-preloader] " in my ps
> listing from a game server that's died in some strange way. Anyone have
> experience in clearing these short of bouncing the whole box? They're
> holding
I've now got several instances of "[wine-preloader] " in my ps
listing from a game server that's died in some strange way. Anyone have
experience in clearing these short of bouncing the whole box? They're
holding onto a couple of TCP ports that I'd like to use. The ports are
stuck in CLOSE_WAIT
12 matches
Mail list logo