On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 01:04:25PM -0400, Volker Quetschke wrote: >(BIG-SNIP) >>>I only paste/attach the 20051024 info, if there is interest I can also send >>>the 20051023 info. >>>(snip) >> >> I would like to see the old strace and any other straces you have to see >> if there's any pattern to something I'm noticing. >I got a few more, but before spamming this list with straces I have >some news. "We" managed to reproduce the hangs on that particular >machine more easily now, but I didn't have the time yet to try >to reproduce it on my machines. I hope tonight ... > >But I can relay the answers to the following questions: >> I don't see any large times being reported at the beginning of the strace. >> I'd expect that if you notice the hang, attach to the process, and then >> do the "ls /proc/<hangpid>/fd". Can you give me a feel for times of: > >First reproducibility: Initially the 20051024 hung every ~ 10 minutes, >but "now" (At the time I got the email) it is running for more than >15 hours. >> >> - noticed the problem >1 min - several hours, then doing ps and cygcheck. > >> - attached to process with strace >5-10 minutes after noticing (max) > >> - performed ls > < 1 min (right after...)
Are you sure that attaching to the process with strace isn't what actually what caused the process to start up? I don't see any 1 minute delays in the strace log. However, if you could wait for a couple minutes between attaching via strace and doing the "ls" that might be instructive. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
