Paul Tomblin (ptomblin@xcski.com)
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:03:52 -0500
Quoting Wes Bauske (wsb@paralleldata.com):
> > As a last resort, "kill -9 pid". But only after you've tried other means of
> > killing a program, because "kill -9" is a hard kill, and doesn't give a
> > program a chance to catch the signal and clean up before dying.
> >
>
> I always use a "kill -11 pid" first to see if a SEGV will
> make it go away gracefully before trying a kill -9.
>
> I occasionally see Netscape hang in a hard cpu loop and
> sending it a kill -11 makes it go away.
A regular unadorned "kill pid" or "kill -TERM pid" will usually have the same
effect, and without the annoying core file that a SEGV will leave. (Unless
you set your ulimit for core to zero, then you don't have them to deal with).
-- Paul Tomblin, not speaking for anybody. "I'm fairly sure Linux exists principally because writing an operating system probably seems like a good way to pass the <bignum> months of darkness in Finland" - Rodger Donaldson-- To unsubscribe: send e-mail to axp-list-request@redhat.com with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to axp-list@redhat.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Mar 01 1999 - 15:00:44 PST