killing multiple process

[Weng Lee,Yap]

Hi,

How can I kill multiple processes at one go?

Regards,
Will

[James Martini]

Weng Lee,Yap wrote:

> How can I kill multiple processes at one go?

If you're running Solaris 7 or 8 the 'pkill' command is pretty handy. On
2.6 I use the following:

kill `ps -ef | grep process-name | grep -v grep | awk {'print $2'}`

James

[Logan Shaw]

In article <3AF4452A...@pacific.net.sg>,

Weng Lee,Yap <will...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> How can I kill multiple processes at one go?

Put all their pids on the same command line:

kill -HUP 321 654 987

- Logan
--
my your his her our their _its_
I'm you're he's she's we're they're _it's_

[Chris Thompson]

In article <9d1nh2$41u$1...@moek.pir.net>,
Peter Radcliffe <27$10$f3i...@pir.net> wrote:

>James Martini <jmar...@millenniumgroup.org> probably said:
>>kill `ps -ef | grep process-name | grep -v grep | awk {'print $2'}`
>

>Pet peeve #36. If you're piping grep into awk, you shouldn't be.
>
>ps -ef | awk '/process-name/ {print $2}' | xargs kill

Pet peeve #37. Use the -o option of ps(1) [available since 2.5] and
test the right field for the right contents.

Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

[James Martini]

Peter Radcliffe wrote:

> James Martini <jmar...@millenniumgroup.org> probably said:

> >kill `ps -ef | grep process-name | grep -v grep | awk {'print $2'}`
>

> Pet peeve #36. If you're piping grep into awk, you shouldn't be.
>
> ps -ef | awk '/process-name/ {print $2}' | xargs kill

Pet peeve #1: People who say 'x is better' without justifying their
assertion. But...

Your right, the awk '/process/ {print $2}' construction is a more efficient
and elegant. I used the first to stop a runaway sendmail on a production
system that was bouncing 5 msgs a second after a jr admin removed
/etc/mail/aliases.db (and on the standard means of stopping it were no
effective). I guess the stress burned it into my my brain since I never
considered doing it another way since.

James

[Chris Thompson]

In article <9d2b0v$ar8$1...@moek.pir.net>,
Peter Radcliffe <27$10$f3i...@pir.net> wrote:

>Chris Thompson <cet1-...@cam.ac.uk.invalid> probably said:
>>Pet peeve #37. Use the -o option of ps(1) [available since 2.5] and
>>test the right field for the right contents.
>

>Not very portable.

Well, scripts post-analysing the output of "ps" are hardly "very portable"
at the best of times.

However, robustness within the context of a particular Unix flavour is
worth trying to achieve.