Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id IAA18068;
 Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:44:31 -0800
Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id
 IAA18063; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:44:29 -0800
Received: by ooo.lanl.gov
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA223894243; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:44:03 -0700
From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <199603051644.AA223894243@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: 1.0.3 does not like SIGTERM on UnixWare 2
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 9:44:03 MST
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960305134348.19900A-100000@moonlite.calvacom.fr>;
 from "Thomas Conte" at Mar 5, 96 1:56 pm
X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory
X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663,
 Los Alamos NM 87545
X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh !
X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/
X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 
> I think this same bug has been posted here a few days ago; but since I 
> subscribed to this list today, maybe I missed the answers. (BTW, is there 
> an archive for this list?)
> 
> I have a problem with Apache 1.0.3 on UnixWare 2: whenever I send it a 
> SIGTERM, it leaves 3 defunct processes behind; what's more, they still 
> listen on port 80, so I cannot run a new httpd...
> 
> I suppose this is a UnixWare 2-specific problem? Or maybe I really 
> screwed up the compilation? :-)

did you give them enough time to shutdown? I try to leave 5 seconds
for all the processes to shutdown gracefully. 


rob