Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95740 > unrolled thread

Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-18 10:11 -0700
    Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-10-19 11:42 -0400
      Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-19 09:18 -0700
        Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-20 04:49 +0000
      Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-19 17:58 +0000
        Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-19 11:52 -0700
          Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-19 19:02 +0000
            Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-20 04:47 +0000
              Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-20 14:26 +0000

#95740 — Re: ssd and persistant procs and app launch

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:11:10 -0700
Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> second
> 
> how to get rid of procs that prevent unmounting ext usb drives
> 
> this proc is part of steam client and when killed respawns
> 
> sometimes force unmount works but never like to force unmount

found one possible solution using launchctl but does not seem to be
permanent

macos should be able to kill a process and then flush and unmount

seems archaic that it is unable to assert control of the unmount

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#95792

In article <nu5lad$1hi$1@dont-email.me>,
 Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:11:10 -0700
> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > second
> > 
> > how to get rid of procs that prevent unmounting ext usb drives
> > 
> > this proc is part of steam client and when killed respawns
> > 
> > sometimes force unmount works but never like to force unmount
> 
> found one possible solution using launchctl but does not seem to be
> permanent
> 
> macos should be able to kill a process and then flush and unmount
> 
> seems archaic that it is unable to assert control of the unmount

Use the Terminal command "lsof" to find the processes that have the 
drive open and kill them.

lsof /Volumes/"Drive Name"

Make sure you put the name in quotes if it contains any spaces or 
punctuation. The COMMAND column shows the names of the programs that 
have files on the disk open, and PID is their process IDs. You can use 
"kill ###", where ### is the PID.

If you don't see anything, it's possible that it's in use by some other 
user, so you'll need to use "sudo" to list and kill them.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95797

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:42:54 -0400
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Use the Terminal command "lsof" to find the processes that have the 
> drive open and kill them.

this process respawns

very persistent or insistent

yes software is hard but valve has clear priorities for windows over
all else

will probably just make a sym link to /bin/true or something and
see what happens

now if it was open source then a proper patch could be submitted

proprietary software are like gun laws and does not stop any real
law breakers but valve have to try to limit the target space and
limit the number of targeters too i guess

the classical arms race

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95829

In message <nu86c1$2bf$8@dont-email.me> 
  Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:42:54 -0400
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> Use the Terminal command "lsof" to find the processes that have the 
>> drive open and kill them.

> this process respawns

What process?

Steam doesn't leave any processes running on my kid's Mac mini once
steam is quit.

-- 
If you could do a sort of relief map of sinfulness, wickedness and
all-round immorality, rather like those representations of the
gravitational field around a Black Hole, then even in Ankh-Morpork the
Shades would be represented by a shaft. In fact the Shades was
remarkably like the aforesaid well-known astrological phenomenon: it had
a certain strong attraction, no light escaped from it, and it could
indeed become a gateway to another world. The next one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95799

On 2016-10-19, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <nu5lad$1hi$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:11:10 -0700
>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > second
>> > 
>> > how to get rid of procs that prevent unmounting ext usb drives
>> > 
>> > this proc is part of steam client and when killed respawns
>> > 
>> > sometimes force unmount works but never like to force unmount
>> 
>> found one possible solution using launchctl but does not seem to be
>> permanent
>> 
>> macos should be able to kill a process and then flush and unmount
>> 
>> seems archaic that it is unable to assert control of the unmount
>
> Use the Terminal command "lsof" to find the processes that have the 
> drive open and kill them.
>
> lsof /Volumes/"Drive Name"
>
> Make sure you put the name in quotes if it contains any spaces or 
> punctuation. The COMMAND column shows the names of the programs that 
> have files on the disk open, and PID is their process IDs. You can use 
> "kill ###", where ### is the PID.
>
> If you don't see anything, it's possible that it's in use by some other 
> user, so you'll need to use "sudo" to list and kill them.

I have Steam and it doesn't leave any processes running after I quit it. 

I suspect PEBKAC.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95803

On 19 Oct 2016 17:58:19 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> I have Steam and it doesn't leave any processes running after I quit
> it. 

is it an external usb drive and case insensitive fs which once was
case sensitive

> I suspect PEBKAC.

anything is possible but this seems to have been ruled out so far

reinstalling to see if that might fix it again

this case insensitive req is really horrible but it is needed due to
legacy games and game engines

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95804

Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2016 17:58:19 GMT
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have Steam and it doesn't leave any processes running after I quit
>> it. 
> 
> is it an external usb drive 

I have external drives connected. Still no processes belonging to Steam are
left running after I quit the application. I notice you haven't bothered to
tell us which process you see running. 

> and case insensitive fs which once was
> case sensitive

There's no good reason to run macOS on a case sensitive file system -
especially considering it may cause some software to malfunction. So this
may indeed be a case of PEBKAC as I suspected.

> this case insensitive req is really horrible 

Nonsense. I'd say *your* requirement to run case sensitive file systems is
likely silly. What are your reasons for doing so? Just because that's what
you are accustomed to doing, or do you have actual technical reasons?

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Still haven't figured out how to post properly with your Usenet client I
see. PEBCAK strikes again.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95828

In message <e6pua0F8hceU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nonsense. I'd say *your* requirement to run case sensitive file systems is
> likely silly. What are your reasons for doing so? Just because that's what
> you are accustomed to doing, or do you have actual technical reasons?

Are there actual technical reasons?

CURRENT technical reasons?

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95837

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <e6pua0F8hceU1@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. I'd say *your* requirement to run case sensitive file systems is
>> likely silly. What are your reasons for doing so? Just because that's what
>> you are accustomed to doing, or do you have actual technical reasons?
> 
> Are there actual technical reasons?
> 
> CURRENT technical reasons?

Nothing important that I can think of. That's why I asked.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web