9.3.2 behavior - explain please

[Pavel Urban]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <f8pa2b$d1v$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Pavel Urban <urbanp at mlp.cz> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Pavel Urban wrote:
>>  > [root at dns ~]# lsof -i udp:53
>>  > COMMAND  PID  USER   FD   TYPE   DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
>>  > named   6982 named   20u  IPv4 19672544       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>  > named   6982 named   22u  IPv4 19672546       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>  > named   6993 named   20u  IPv4 19672564       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>  > named   6993 named   21u  IPv4 19672566       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>  >
>>  > Strange...
>>  >
>>
>> Huh... I can see it now. There were indeed two instances of named. How 
>> could that happen I don't know... Thanks a lot!
> 
> That's very strange.  It's not supposed to be possible for multiple 
> processes to bind to the same local address and UDP port.  Are you sure 
> 6993 and 6982 aren't threads of the same process?  On Linux, the PID 
> identifies the thread, not the process.
> 

No, they were really different processes. One of them didn't know about 
the new domain, the second one did. I've killed them both, started named 
and there were only one again - acting as it should. Weird.

-- 
***********************************************************************
Pavel Urban (pavel.urban (at) o2.com)
O2 system disaster
Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, a.s. - www.cz.o2.com
***********************************************************************
    Vegetables should not operate electronic equipment.
           Computer Stupidities, http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
***********************************************************************