Re: Losing track of processes?

Christopher Faylor wrote: If you're not using the -17 (test) version of bash, try that. Wow! Much better! My scripts are still churning after 4 hours. When will this be part of an offical cygwin drop? Well, it's already official FWIW, I've removed -17 from test status. Thanks. But,

Re: Losing track of processes?

Brian Dessent wrote: If you're not using the -17 (test) version of bash, try that. Wow! Much better! My scripts are still churning after 4 hours. When will this be part of an offical cygwin drop? -- Ken Shaffer - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -

Re: Losing track of processes?

Shaffer, Kenneth wrote: If you're not using the -17 (test) version of bash, try that. Wow! Much better! My scripts are still churning after 4 hours. When will this be part of an offical cygwin drop? Well, it's already official in that it's been on all the cygwin mirrors for quite some

Re: Losing track of processes?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:02:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: Shaffer, Kenneth wrote: If you're not using the -17 (test) version of bash, try that. Wow! Much better! My scripts are still churning after 4 hours. When will this be part of an offical cygwin drop? Well, it's already

Losing track of processes?

I have a suite of scripts which process logs but get hung after two hours. My initial looking into it shows that cygwin ps command thinks the processes are present, but windows task manager doesn't see them at all. It's as if the parent wasn't informed that it's child died. Perhaps a wait system

Re: Losing track of processes?

Shaffer, Kenneth wrote: I have a suite of scripts which process logs but get hung after two hours. My initial looking into it shows that cygwin ps command thinks the processes are present, but windows task manager doesn't see them at all. It's as if the parent wasn't informed that it's child