Re: Re[2]: Shutting down NFS

Re: Re[2]: Shutting down NFS

[Jesse Pollard]

---------  Received message begins Here  ---------

> 
> Hello Jesse,
> 
> Wednesday, August 29, 2001, 3:58:07 PM, you wrote:
> >> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
> >> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
> >> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9 ?
> >> 
> >> This looks ugly and total sleep time is 25 sec.
> >> A better way is to make NFS daemons understand what user wants after
> >> first call, not a third.
> 
> JP> This already looks like overkill :-) Only the first one should be
> JP> needed. I can understand that NFSD could disable signal 15, but not
> JP> how it can disable 9... The only way I know for that to happen is
> JP> if the process is in an uninterruptable sleep for some reason (and
> JP> that should only delay signal delivery, not eliminate it).
> 
> It looks like killall5 bug - "killall -9 nfsd" kills nfsd at once.
> Do you know where killall5 source is? There's no killall5 in
> util-linux...

Glad you found it... The killall5 source is part of the sysvinit. I found
it on the Slackware 8 source disk. (I wonder about the "will not kill
processes in current session" thing... does nfsd appear to be in the
same session???? I wouldn't think so, but that would explain why some of
terminations takes so long, and why some signals appear to be disabled)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re[2]: Shutting down NFS

[VDA]

Hello Jesse,

Wednesday, August 29, 2001, 3:58:07 PM, you wrote:
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9 ?
>> 
>> This looks ugly and total sleep time is 25 sec.
>> A better way is to make NFS daemons understand what user wants after
>> first call, not a third.

JP> This already looks like overkill :-) Only the first one should be
JP> needed. I can understand that NFSD could disable signal 15, but not
JP> how it can disable 9... The only way I know for that to happen is
JP> if the process is in an uninterruptable sleep for some reason (and
JP> that should only delay signal delivery, not eliminate it).

It looks like killall5 bug - "killall -9 nfsd" kills nfsd at once.
Do you know where killall5 source is? There's no killall5 in
util-linux...

Best regards,
VDA
--
mailto:VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
http://port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua/vda/