From 15d628d6da29700bffcc24d8d959db7d82f1fe7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:56:45 -0400 Subject: comment --- ...ent_4_2fbb97cb5bca3a0e2835e7667aff7a00._comment | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Weird_SSH_issue/comment_4_2fbb97cb5bca3a0e2835e7667aff7a00._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/Weird_SSH_issue/comment_4_2fbb97cb5bca3a0e2835e7667aff7a00._comment b/doc/forum/Weird_SSH_issue/comment_4_2fbb97cb5bca3a0e2835e7667aff7a00._comment new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2ffdcbac --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Weird_SSH_issue/comment_4_2fbb97cb5bca3a0e2835e7667aff7a00._comment @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 4""" + date="2016-03-06T18:43:37Z" + content=""" +Added some debugging, I found that processes run by concurrent-output tend to +alternate between running foreground and background. So, when the socket +exists and is old, it will run one more process than otherwise to +stop ssh on that socket, and this will change which run method is +used for subsequent processes. + +However, it really shouldn't matter if a process starts in the background; +concurrent-output shoud notice when the output lock frees up, and start +displaying the processes's output. + +So, this theory explains why the ssh socket seems to be involved, perhaps, +but it doesn't really explain what's happening to prevent the remote +propellor output from being shown. + +Unless some other foreground process is hanging around and keeping +the output lock. Or some bug in concurrent-output.. +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3