Eric Schrock writes:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0400, Brandorr wrote:
> >
> > +1,000,000 for integrating LSOF. (My vote doesn't count, but I'm sure
> > you will find many others that will support/sponsor you if you choose
> > to take this on instead.)
> >
>
> Can you explain why '+1,000,000'? Is it because it makes it possible to
> answer this particular question (what process is listening on a port),
> or is there some other greater functionality beyond pfiles(1) + this
> RFE that this would provide? I ask because the interfaces lsof uses
There's much greater functionality, which is why I'd give at least a
hearty +1. lsof is also in some respects a superset of pgrep and
fuser. The networking part alone searches for patterns like this:
[46][protoco...@hostname|hostaddr][:service|port]
rather than just a single local port. In addition to that, it's very
well-known and familar to people trying to migrate from Linux and
other operating systems. Seeing "lsof: command not found" or
equivalent is *quite* discouraging, especially for a system
administrator.
(+1,000,000 seems like a lot, though.)
> (namely /dev/kmem) are too brittle to suport in any coherent fashion.
> Integrating LSOF would be more than checking in code. We'd have to
> provide stable interfaces (or at last *an* interface that could be
> contracted) and modify the lsof code to use those, which is a
> non-trivial amount of work.
Yep. It looks like a lot of work to me.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
