Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:59:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: "Brian T.Schellenberger" <bts@babbleon.org> Cc: Christopher Schulte <schulte+freebsd@nospam.schulte.org>, Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1011455737.3e0c77@mired.org>, questions <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: lsof vs. fstat Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0201151155310.13885-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <0a1123649100f12FE6@Mail6.nc.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote: > On Monday 14 January 2002 11:21 am, Christopher Schulte wrote: > > > > > > Use lsof ( /usr/ports/sysutils/lsof ) and HUP only the listening sshd > > process. > > Does lsof have some advantage over fstat? I posted a while ago mentioning > lsof, which had been recomemnded to me by regular FreeBSD users, and somebody > here pointed out that fstat is in the base system. It seems to do what I > used lsof for, so I just aliased lsof to fstat when I restaged my machine > recently. > > Am I missing out on something or is fstat just not well-known? lsof has a whole slew of options and combines functionality of fstat, netstat and sockstat. It's generally more convenient if you're used to it. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Generalisation is never appropriate. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.31.0201151155310.13885-100000>