- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Integrity Servers
- >
- Re: ia64_corehw zombie
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-17-2004 09:15 PM
тАО03-17-2004 09:15 PM
Both machines show more or less directly after reboot one zombie process. It is owned by root and called ia64_corehw.
There is also a 'normal' process ia64_corehw running.
Is this permanent zombie a known 'feature' of HP-UX 11.23 or is our system somehow mis-configered.
Thanks for any advice.
Malte Neumann
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-24-2004 08:06 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-15-2005 01:30 AM
тАО04-15-2005 01:30 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
This is known behaviour, and is not optimal, but it is not incorrect behaviour. It is not having any effect on the system beyond the overhead of forking the child process and dealing with its cleanup each time.
There are currently no plans to change this.
If it is causing a problem beyond being unexpected, please explain either here or via HP support.
Andrew Merritt
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-22-2005 12:21 AM
тАО04-22-2005 12:21 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
Why HP do this I do not know :(
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-22-2005 12:27 AM
тАО04-22-2005 12:27 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
Andrew
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-22-2005 12:40 AM
тАО04-22-2005 12:40 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
But users like me do not like zombi and
defunc proces in there ps -ef
Get it ?
I can't get why HP make software ia64_corehw which make defunc.
Normaly if I have zombi, there is software that not work correct. I'm I right ?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-22-2005 12:52 AM
тАО04-22-2005 12:52 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
In this particular case, the parent ia64_corehw forks a child to process a log file every minute. When there is not much data to process, the child usually completes in a couple of seconds. The parent issues the wait() at the end of the minute, if the child has finished. This does have the effect that the child shows as
I agree that this could be done more efficiently, and that the
However, it looks like an incomplete understanding of how Unix works to simply view this as an error. Can you point to any documentation that says it's an error for a
Andrew
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-22-2005 01:17 AM
тАО04-22-2005 01:17 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
/You write this on your msg/ :)
Did you see 10 or more defunc on one server ???
Is this normal ?????
I know that defunc not use any resources.
But also i know that 1000 mine serveres haven't defunc when they work whitout problem.
If you ask me :) if you see 10 or more defunc on your PS , take care about your software :))
Yes I'm not a programmer , but I saw a lot of software runing on UNIX based server.
I share what I know and my experience.
If you think that I'm wrong :))
Ok
I do not represent HP this is my personal opinion.
P.S. My customer ask me for this zombi process. Also he isn't a programmer.
do you get it ???
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-26-2007 08:18 AM
тАО03-26-2007 08:18 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
I'm running HP-UX 11.23 (Sept 2004) on an rx4640-4 and the system is on a pretty heavy constant load with three of the four processors locked by a process using pset_bind. At times, I've seen multiple ia64_corehw processes (more than 2) running at a time. Along with this, we've seen some issues reported with EMS not reporting expected events. I can only expect it's the multiple ia64_corehw processes but I haven't been able to find out how extra processes are getting started.
Hope this right place for this post. Thanks in advance for the help.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-26-2007 08:25 AM
тАО03-26-2007 08:25 AM
Re: ia64_corehw zombie
Yes, you shouldn't see more than two copies of ia64_corehw at once time. What version of the OnlineDiags are you running? Is that Sept 2004 too? If so, you need to upgrade to a current version. There were some problems with ia64_corehw in the past, but they are fixed in the current version. http://www.docs.hp.com/en/diag/stm/stm_upd.htm#table
Andrew