lsof on solaris 10
in [Solaris]
|
Prev: what happened to "text file busy" ?
Next: ld: fatal: relocations remain against allocatable but non-writable sections
From: Casper H.S. Dik on 18 Nov 2006 10:13 Dan Foster <usenet(a)evilphb.org> writes: >Casper Dik indicates that this would be fixed by recompiling lsof... >however, even when I do so with lsof 4.77 on Solaris 10/x86 Update 2 + >patches + SUNWgcc, still doesn't work. So... hmm. I'm not sure. Strange; it still works for me in Solaris Nevada and I can't imagine what would then cause it to fail in Solaris 10 u 2. Casper -- Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems. Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may be fiction rather than truth.
From: Michael Schreiber on 20 Nov 2006 01:15 but the name of the process - has absulutly nothing to do with the tcp port... > > Not at all. Look at the process name. > > -frank >
From: Michael Schreiber on 20 Nov 2006 01:16 i have installed the lsof version 4.77 from sunfreeware > Michael Schreiber <nospam(a)schreiber.at> wrote: >> because all ports are listet @ TCP 65535. >> i have this problem on all my solaris 10 sparc maschines. >> can anybody confirm that? > > Are you absolutely sure you're using a version of lsof that has been > compiled for use with Solaris 10? I had similar problems using one from > Solaris 8 with Solaris 9. > > Jens
From: Frank Cusack on 20 Nov 2006 02:37
Yes, but my point was that the OP showed tail -2 just as an example which grabbed the httpd data. I'm sure that wasn't REALLY the way he was testing things. (But I guess correct lsof options would have been better, or even just '|grep httpd'.) Too bad you snipped too much context for anyone else to follow this. On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Michael Schreiber <nospam(a)schreiber.at> wrote: > but the name of the process - has absulutly nothing to do with the tcp > port... > > >> >> Not at all. Look at the process name. >> >> -frank >> |