- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- UNIX95 not fully working in a system container
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
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
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
05-27-2014 09:02 AM
05-27-2014 09:02 AM
UNIX95 not fully working in a system container
Hi all
Here's an interesting one...
We're running 11.11 system containers under an 11.31 Itanium host, and have successfuly converted our system to run on it; but one thing (among several...) that isn't working the same is using UNIX95 to get a hierarchical 'ps' listing, i,e,
UNIX95= ps -xHfu<user>
gives us no output (where 'ps -xfu<user>' does but with no hierarchy shown)
We can use it on the host, no problem, but we do some process management on the containers that it came in very useful for before we virtualised, and now it doesn't work. Any ideas please?
Thanks
- Tags:
- PS
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-27-2014 12:10 PM
05-27-2014 12:10 PM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
>UNIX95= ps -xHfu <user>
Do you have an alias for ps(1)? Try:
UNIX95= \ps -xHfu <user>
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-27-2014 12:21 PM
05-27-2014 12:21 PM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
No, ps is /usr/bin/ps (I also checked using the fully qualified pathname and get the same result) so not an alias; all we get is:
dba:>UNIX95= ps -Hxfudba
UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME CMD
dba:>
...whereas 'ps-xfudba' gives a whole slew of processes (as expected)
NB we're running ksh; we get the same result in Bourne shell
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-28-2014 03:19 AM - edited 05-28-2014 10:36 AM
05-28-2014 03:19 AM - edited 05-28-2014 10:36 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
>UNIX95= ps -Hxfudba
Have you tried tusc on it?
>we get the same result in Bourne shell
There shouldn't be any Bourne shells, did you mean Posix? /usr/bin/sh is Posix.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-28-2014 08:22 AM
05-28-2014 08:22 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
No, I meant in /bin/sh, which is Bourne.
It seems all the XPG4-only options fail, not just H.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-28-2014 09:01 AM
05-28-2014 09:01 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
>>No, I meant in /bin/sh, which is Bourne.
Actually, it's not. /bin/sh and /sbin/sh are POSIX shells, NOT bourne shells.
From 'man sh':
Remarks The POSIX .2 standard requires that, on a POSIX-compliant system, executing the command sh activates the POSIX shell (located in file /usr/bin/sh on HP-UX systems), and executing the command man sh produces an on-line manual entry that displays the syntax of the POSIX shell command-line.
If I recall correctly the Bourne shell is actually in /usr/old/bin/sh.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-28-2014 10:35 AM
05-28-2014 10:35 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
>If I recall correctly the Bourne shell is actually in /usr/old/bin/sh.
Yes it's there for 11.11. For 11.31, I don't see it there or in /usr/old/usr/bin/.
And "UNIX95= ps -Hxfu <user>" works fine on my 11.11 system.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-29-2014 01:44 AM
05-29-2014 01:44 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
Whatever! Bourne, shmourne.
The issue remains that ps -H (with UNIX95 set) worked fine on our old system on an HP9000 running 11.11 and now we're virtualised, ps -H doesn't work any more.
Any clues as to why/where I can look please?
Thanks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-29-2014 02:33 AM - edited 05-29-2014 02:34 AM
05-29-2014 02:33 AM - edited 05-29-2014 02:34 AM
Re: UNIX95= ps not fully working in a system container
>Any clues as to why/where I can look please?
Well, you can try HPSC.
But tusc is your friend. I suppose I could take my 11.11 ps(1) and run on 11.31 and see what happens.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-29-2014 06:19 PM
05-29-2014 06:19 PM
Re: UNIX95 not fully working in a system container
I can confirm that on an Itanium box, running a container with 11.11 and another running 10.20, both fail to report -H correctly.
On 11.11:
# UNIX95=1 ps -eH PID TTY TIME CMD 25675 ? 00:00 autofskd_12 # ps -e PID TTY TIME CMD 25661 ? 00:00 nfsmapid 25791 ? 00:00 httpd 28612 ? 00:00 sshd: 25488 ? 00:00 srp_init 25681 ? 00:00 inetd 25725 ? 00:00 cron 25655 ? 00:00 nfs4cbd 25587 ? 00:00 sshd 28614 pts/0 00:00 -sh 25792 ? 00:00 httpd 25597 ? 00:00 rpcbind 25721 ? 00:00 lpsched 25812 ? 00:02 prngd 25793 ? 00:00 httpd 25760 ? 00:04 nmbd 25728 ? 00:00 swagentd 25789 ? 00:02 httpd 25576 ? 00:00 syslogd 25763 ? 00:00 smbd 25675 ? 00:00 autofskd_12 25788 ? 00:00 smbd 25628 ? 00:00 rpc.statd 25634 ? 00:00 rpc.lockd 25673 ? 00:06 automountd 28930 pts/0 00:00 ps
On 10.20:
# UNIX95=1 ps -eH PID TTY TIME CMD 5981 ? 00:00:00 nfssrp_kdaemon 5994 ? 00:00:00 autofskd_13 # ps -e PID TTY TIME CMD 5951 ? 00:00:00 rpc.lockd 5998 ? 00:00:00 inetd 5945 ? 00:00:00 rpc.statd 6054 ? 00:00:00 sh 28945 pts/ta 00:00:00 -sh 5978 ? 00:00:00 nfsmapid 29022 pts/ta 00:00:00 ps 7737 ? 00:00:00 sshd 6043 ? 00:00:00 cron 5981 ? 00:00:00 nfssrp_kdaemon 5972 ? 00:00:00 nfs4cbd 5932 ? 00:00:00 rpcbind 5992 ? 00:00:05 automountd 5920 ? 00:00:00 syslogd 5850 ? 00:00:00 srp_init 5994 ? 00:00:00 autofskd_13 6306 ? 00:00:00 dtlogin 6015 ? 00:00:00 sendmail: 6046 ? 00:00:00 swagentd 28944 pts/ta 00:00:00 telnetd
Looks like a feature -- haven't tried 11.23 in a container yet.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin