Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/10/27/13:18:53
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/
- Raw text -