From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 16 20:02:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D27B16A400 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:02:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nagylzs@freemail.hu) Received: from smtp.enternet.hu (smtp.enternet.hu [62.112.192.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E4C13C4A5 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:02:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nagylzs@freemail.hu) Received: from [62.68.191.191] (helo=[172.16.0.43]) by smtp.enternet.hu with esmtpa (Exim 4) id 1HI9Hq-0009zu-8q; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:02:30 +0100 Message-ID: <45D60DD1.6050208@freemail.hu> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:02:25 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Nagy_L=E1szl=F3_Zsolt?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergey Zaharchenko , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <45D5D042.4000202@designaproduct.biz> <45D5D81E.1080700@joeholden.co.uk> <45D5E1BA.6010504@freemail.hu> <20070216192503.GA7827@shark.localdomain> <20070216192847.GA8358@shark.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20070216192847.GA8358@shark.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Invisible process killing the CPU X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:02:33 -0000 > Ouch, that's pages freed by exiting processes, not process forks (gotta > get some sleep). Anyway, if this is persistent, then some processes are > exiting all the time, and they have to get created somehow, so the > scenario is the same... > Yessssssssssssss! That was it! Thank you so much! :-) There was a program that forked another in a loop. The forked program was working for days, but now it is throwing an error. You were right. The parent process was starting the child process at an incredibly rate. And you were also right in that, since the child processes were running only for some msec, they where not recognized by top and so they were not shown. You are a genious! :-) Thank you!!!!!