Wes Bauske (wsb@paralleldata.com)
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:51:21 -0600
Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> 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).
>
You'd think so, but it doesn't. Apparently Netscape messes
with it's signal handlers and traps the standard kill. Core
files are a nit... I don't usually care whether they occur
or not. If you want to get rid of them, do a
find / -name core -exec rm {} \;
Or, to automate it, have cron do it...
Wes
-- 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 - 17:01:38 PST