> Amazing. Not in a good way.
> The corruption would be at the client end, correct?
> Is there a reason that the client could not just report back
> "taking to long to mount" and leave its data uncorrupted?
>
> Would similar corruption take place if the process had just
> termintated itself witho
On 14 April 2012 20:25, Michael Hennebry wrot$
Under what circumstance would killing a waiting process
be worse than a process that should have waited,
but terminated instead?
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012, Alan Cox wrote:
When it leaves the system in an unstable state or where corruption could
follow
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 20:26 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 14.04.2012 20:19, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
> >> When you do a "kill" you are sending a "signal" to a process and that
> >> process will
> >> act upon it depending on the signal. For example, if you did a "kill -1"
> >> to the
>
On 04/14/2012 04:11 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Under what circumstance would killing a waiting process
be worse than a process that should have waited,
but terminated instead?
When it leaves the system in an unstable state or where corruption could
follow. Far better then to leave that process stuck un
> One of my favorite near infinite hangs is a giant process that
> decides to core dump across NFS. I don't know if it is still
> the case, but once upon a time when linux started writing
> a core file, it would never stop for any reason till it was
> done.
We fixed that one 8)
Alan
--
users mai
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:11:36 +0100
Alan Cox wrote:
> In the case of NFS btw read the mount page for the "soft" and "intr"
> options and also read about umount -f.
One of my favorite near infinite hangs is a giant process that
decides to core dump across NFS. I don't know if it is still
the case,
> Under what circumstance would killing a waiting process
> be worse than a process that should have waited,
> but terminated instead?
When it leaves the system in an unstable state or where corruption could
follow. Far better then to leave that process stuck unless things sort
out.
In the case o
On 14 April 2012 20:37, jdow wrote:
> I was about to comment a little more acerbicly that he's obviously a
> youngster.
> Killing power used to be the only way to shut down a locked up computer
> with
> ANY then available OS on it. I remember those bad old days too well.
>
> {^_-}
Shudder. I
On 04/14/2012 12:40 PM, jdow wrote:
As long as that is enabled in the BIOS it will perform a hard
shutdown. Of course, if the heart is racing sometimes it is wise to tell
the
poor victim, hold it in for 30 seconds or until the computer shuts down.
Back when I was on the phone, you sometimes nee
On 14 April 2012 20:25, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>
> Under what circumstance would killing a waiting process
> be worse than a process that should have waited,
> but terminated instead?
>
>
Waiting for a timeout implies a reasonably sane state of affairs regarding
any data in transit, and if the wo
On 14 April 2012 20:06, Joe Zeff wrote:
> I'd think that there'd have to be a special command, requiring root, to do
> it for exactly that reason. There's no way you can safely automate that
> decision, and it's probably best if the average user doesn't have direct
> access to it; if nothing els
On 04/14/2012 12:25 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
Under what circumstance would killing a waiting process
be worse than a process that should have waited,
but terminated instead?
I think that the idea is that if the process is in an uninterruptable
sleep, it's for a good reason and the kernel is
On 2012/04/14 12:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 04/14/2012 12:13 PM, My Usenet wrote:
Typically if you need to do a bios reset - then unplugging the battery
will be helpful.
I take it that you didn't bother to read my original post. I was talking about a
computer hanging while processing an interrupt
On 2012/04/14 12:30, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 04/14/2012 12:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
every computer i know does a hard power-off pressing the power-button
for 5 seconds if all other things are failing
This was about ten or twelve years ago. I'm not sure, but I might have even had
them try that. (
On 04/14/2012 12:13 PM, My Usenet wrote:
Typically if you need to do a bios reset - then unplugging the battery
will be helpful.
I take it that you didn't bother to read my original post. I was
talking about a computer hanging while processing an interrupt with
interrupts disabled. Not some
On 04/14/2012 12:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
every computer i know does a hard power-off pressing the power-button
for 5 seconds if all other things are failing
This was about ten or twelve years ago. I'm not sure, but I might have
even had them try that. (Please note that even then, their l
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012, Andy Blanchard wrote:
On 14 April 2012 19:26, Reindl Harald wrote:
on the other hand i am missing understanding that there
is no root-command to kill such processes without
"their help"
the kernel should be able to kill anything
sounds like a missing interface for me
On 04/14/2012 01:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 14.04.2012 20:55, schrieb Joe Zeff:
>> Once, the computer was a laptop and the caller had to go hunt up a
>> screwdriver to take the battery out.
> not really
>
> every computer i know does a hard power-off pressing the power-button
> for 5 secon
Am 14.04.2012 20:55, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> Once, the computer was a laptop and the caller had to go hunt up a
> screwdriver to take the battery out.
not really
every computer i know does a hard power-off pressing the power-button
for 5 seconds if all other things are failing
signature.asc
Des
On 04/14/2012 11:42 AM, Andy Blanchard wrote:
In theory, yes, but the problem would be that the kernel would no longer
have any way of knowing what state the device being waited on is in.
Depending on the device that could be very bad news and potentially
result in trashed data.
I'd think that
On 04/14/2012 11:19 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Exactly. The correct view of "kill -9" is not that you kill the process
but that you order the process to commit suicide. If it's not listening,
no amount of shouting is going to make a difference.
As another example, your CPU sometimes disable
On 14 April 2012 19:26, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> on the other hand i am missing understanding that there
> is no root-command to kill such processes without
> "their help"
>
> the kernel should be able to kill anything
> sounds like a missing interface for me
>
In theory, yes, but the problem wo
Am 14.04.2012 20:19, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
>> When you do a "kill" you are sending a "signal" to a process and that
>> process will
>> act upon it depending on the signal. For example, if you did a "kill -1" to
>> the
>> named process it will cause it to reread its configuration files a
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 23:14 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 10:54 PM, Hal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/14/2012 8:08 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray wrote:
> >>> Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
> >> I'll repeat myself: "The only way
On 04/14/2012 11:22 PM, Hal wrote:
> FINE..then REBOOT the darn thing and quit wasting time ..!!
Actually, the only time wasted was yours in answering a question erroneously.
I view correcting your response as a community service. :-) :-)
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, yo
On 4/14/2012 11:15 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
Hi Hal,
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 16:54, Hal wrote:
On 4/14/2012 8:08 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray
wrote:
Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
I'll repeat myself: "The only way to get rid of t
Hi Hal,
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 16:54, Hal wrote:
> On 4/14/2012 8:08 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
>>
>> I'll repeat myself: "The only way to get rid of these processes is to
>> w
On 04/14/2012 10:54 PM, Hal wrote:
>
>
> On 4/14/2012 8:08 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray wrote:
>>> Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
>> I'll repeat myself: "The only way to get rid of these processes is to
>> wait or reboot."
>>
>
> Par
On 4/14/2012 8:08 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray wrote:
Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
I'll repeat myself: "The only way to get rid of these processes is to
wait or reboot."
Pardon my stupidity, if you can observe ot determine th
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 21:09, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Again how do you kill a cp in UNINTERRUPTIBLE SLEEP !!!
I'll repeat myself: "The only way to get rid of these processes is to
wait or reboot."
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedorapro
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 20:09 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:22 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:59 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 15:22, Kevin Martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 04/13/2012 05:55 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> > > >>
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:22 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:59 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 15:22, Kevin Martin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 04/13/2012 05:55 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:47, Reindl Harald
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:59 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 15:22, Kevin Martin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/13/2012 05:55 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:47, Reindl Harald
> >> wrote:
> How can I kill the broken cp operation ?
> >>> killall -s SIGKILL c
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 15:22, Kevin Martin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/13/2012 05:55 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
How can I kill the broken cp operation ?
>>> killall -s SIGKILL cp
>> This might not work always. I have faced similar issues with process
On 04/13/2012 05:55 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> How can I kill the broken cp operation ?
>> killall -s SIGKILL cp
> This might not work always. I have faced similar issues with processes
> waiting to access a filesystem over the network. In the
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> How can I kill the broken cp operation ?
>
> killall -s SIGKILL cp
This might not work always. I have faced similar issues with processes
waiting to access a filesystem over the network. In these cases if there
is a problem with the network i
Am 13.04.2012 11:43, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> Hi
>
> Fedora 16 x86_64 Kernel 3.3.1-3.fc16.x86_64 #1 SMP
>
> I have cif mount over a VPN to a remote windows share which I have a
> local
> "cp -fLruv" to.
>
> If this "cp -fLruv" hangs because a VPN problem broke the connection
> temporarily. I
37 matches
Mail list logo
