From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1487 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "George Georgalis" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit not collecting zombies Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:35:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20070715223553.GU3925@run.galis.org> References: <20070619190751.GC27090@home.power> <20070620162325.26345.qmail@7d91355cde742c.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070620165736.GC12963@home.power> <20070620183532.4571.qmail@9f638fd8b69905.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070623044205.GA1594@home.power> <20070626095920.6195.qmail@3e147d410b1c2c.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070715144704.GS23517@home.power> <20070715190757.GW23517@home.power> <20070715201846.GT3925@run.galis.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1184538959 23606 80.91.229.12 (15 Jul 2007 22:35:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:35:59 +0000 (UTC) To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-1724-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Mon Jul 16 00:35:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IACh1-0000aV-M0 for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:35:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 11976 invoked by uid 76); 15 Jul 2007 22:36:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 11969 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2007 22:36:16 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1487 Archived-At: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:31:55PM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote: >"George Georgalis" wrote: >> Your defunct perl process are probably waiting for EOF from the >> fork. maybe you could close stdout/stderr of the fork? > >No, a defunct process has already exited. The only reason it still >shows up in the process list is that its parent (in this case, process >1) hasn't wait()ed for it yet. I don't think anything about the >defunct process, at least not its file descriptors, can influence >whether the parent waits for it. that's elucidating. but in practice isn't the best way to deal with defunct entries by attaching fd to a file or socket then exec the child (which may fork) so the parent no longer has a fd open to the child? // George -- George Georgalis, information systems scientist <