🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: vmsnet.internals
Article #399

re: idle terminal...

#399
From: Carl J Lydick
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 10:33
43 lines
2722 bytes
In article <8980927@MVB.SAIC.COM>, "Bob George" <BOB@aeneas.ims.disa.mil> writes:
>Subj:   Re: stopping idle process terminators
>
>#Some idle-process killers issue a $FORCEX to the process (to force image
>#exit) and then issue $DELPRC (for example, Matt Madison's excellent program
>#WATCHER).
>
>The $FORCEX just terminates any image that you have running and returns
>control to DCL.  That wouldn't have any effect on the nodelete bit, would
>it?  Then the $DELPRC does check the nodelete bit (and other things) before
>it trys to kill the process.

What good does it to to prevent the idle-process killer from deleting your
process if it manages to prevent the process from doing anything in the first
place?  For most purposes, forcing an image exit is just as bad as deleting the
process (there are, of course some exceptions;  for example, if the process has
a device allocated and you're more interested in making sure nobody else
accesses that device than you are in having the process do any work).

>#I don't believe $FORCEX or $EXIT pay any attention to the nodelete
>#flag (because an image exit isn't a process deletion).
>
>The $FORCEX or $EXIT wouldn't kill the process either - just knock you
>down to the CLI.

Which is, most likely, what you're really trying to avoid.

>#Doesn't the nosuspend bit just prevent the process from being placed into
>#SUSP state?
>
>Yes, but operations at one of the sites that I support has a nasty habit of
>stopping users' processes when they are running backups.

And you'd be willing to have them simply force the process to exit from BACKUP? 
Sounds a bit strange to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1dat9bINNcjl@gap.caltech.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
References: <8980927@MVB.SAIC.COM>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.internals
Subject: re: idle terminal...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 10:33:15 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 43
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1dat9bINNcjl@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <8980927@MVB.SAIC.COM>
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu