"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces. > Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to > be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean
I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about "kill"; "kill -15", killing me softly... ha, just like a song, ...killing me softly with his words ...killing me softly with his songs... > up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't* > perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to. I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to the OS, right? > Most zombies are waiting for a resource to close. Hitting the other end > of the resource (parent or child) generally does same. So basically, if that happened, it just means that the other side was not yet exiting. (?) Really mean... > This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get > the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though. Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 <progname>, to no avail. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. Oki