[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [multitail] Re: WARNING

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:00:53PM +0200, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> > >  Is it possible that ^Z (placing multimail in background) could
> > >  cause problems?
> > doesn't unexpected termination (ie. not waiting for the child process)
> > of a parent process cause zombies?
> > out of curiosity is this a redhat machine? i know there was  a problem
> > with some verisons of redhat ignoring the SIGCHLD signal... and
> If that's so I'm *really* interested to know what version of redhat that
> is, maybe I can try it in vmware or so.
> > multitail uses that in it's ui.c code. if you send it to the
> > background that COULD be the problem.
> Could be. But afaik zombies get only created when a chield process
> exits. That means that a process started by multitail which exits could
> cause it. When monitoring regular logFILES, no processes are executed.

  Now, this is *very* interesting.  Because I saw many '[tail] <defunct>'
  and at least two '[multitail] <defunct>' in the process list.  So, the
  (possibly rhetorical) question becomes "where did they come from?" if
  multitail was not creating them?  Because no one was logged on to the
  machine but me, and all I was running was multitail.  It is possible I
  ran some other command in multitail, I just do not remember at this point.


> > i always use 'screen' myself. i use "screen -S mt" and then run
> > multitail.
> Ah yes, screen is very handy.
> Folkert van Heusden
> -- 
> www.biglumber.com <- site where one can exchange PGP key signatures 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent through the MultiTail mailinglist (www.vanheusden.com/multitail)