Operating System - Linux
1829490 Members
1422 Online
109991 Solutions
New Discussion

"ps" returns wrong process start date

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
Raynald Boucher
Super Advisor

"ps" returns wrong process start date

Hello all,
This is a non critical issue but I'm trying to explain, understand why I'm getting a future process start date from ps:

[boucherr@fcsfos boucherr]$ ps -ef | grep cron
root 13858 1 0 2010 ? 00:00:08 crond
[boucherr@fcsfos boucherr]$ date
Fri Oct 30 11:05:18 ADT 2009
[boucherr@fcsfos boucherr]$

I'm getting the same result for xinetd but all others are ok.
uptime returns 270 days.
/var/lock/subsys/crond is timestamped Dec 30 2008 however.

Thanks

RayB

3 REPLIES 3
Steven E. Protter
Exalted Contributor
Solution

Re: "ps" returns wrong process start date

Shalom,

Could be a bug in the process table, could be an aborted start up back in 2008.

Bouncd the services or xinetd daemon and call it a day.

SEP
Steven E Protter
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
Raynald Boucher
Super Advisor

Re: "ps" returns wrong process start date

Hmmmm.
I was going to do this, and it worked OK.

I would have liked to know what the bug was however.

Thanks
Rayb
Matti_Kurkela
Honored Contributor

Re: "ps" returns wrong process start date

As you're so far the only one who knows the name and version of your Linux distribution, we cannot help much in your research.

If your distribution is still supported by its creator, check the list of kernel patches that have been published for it within the last 270 days (or more, if it wasn't up to date when it was booted 270 days ago).

You might also wish to Google for this bug: as the archives of Linux kernel development mailing lists are public, you might easily find something relevant.

For example, I just googled with the keywords:

linux process start time in future

and on the first page of results, there were several indications that something like this used to happen with kernel version 2.6.1 or thereabouts. In other words, this might well be a known bug.

MK
MK