BackupPC-users

[BackupPC-users] Feature request for 3.2: wait for children to remove zombies

2009-04-09 15:41:31
Subject: [BackupPC-users] Feature request for 3.2: wait for children to remove zombies
From: John Rouillard <rouilj-backuppc AT renesys DOT com>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:37:54 +0000
Hi all:

For the upcoming 3.2 release is anything being down to reap zombie
processes?

Currently if you have multiple shares being backed up on a single
host, a share is backed up and the child process is just abandoned as
far as I can tell. This leads to a bunch of zombies being generated.

They seem to be finally reaped when the backup for the entire host
exits (and I assume the zombies are inherited by init and then
wait()'ed for by init). I can have 100 or more zombie processes at a
time which makes finding and stopping other processes that are
creating zombies somewhat difficult.

Would it be possible to have the parent wait for each child processes
before spawning a new backup process for the next share on a host in
the 3.2 release?

This would be helpful as it would allow us to not have to treat
backuppc systems differently from the point of view of our normal
system monitoring.
        
-- 
                                -- rouilj

John Rouillard       System Administrator
Renesys Corporation  603-244-9084 (cell)  603-643-9300 x 111

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>