Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site floyd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!mit-eddi!mit-vax!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!trb From: trb@floyd.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: UNIX continues! Message-ID: <1712@floyd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Jul-83 11:27:11 EDT Article-I.D.: floyd.1712 Posted: Fri Jul 1 11:27:11 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jul-83 01:39:58 EDT Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ Lines: 26 I made an amazing discovery the other week, and I confirmed it a few minutes ago. It's possible to CONTINUE 4.1bsd UNIX sometimes after it HALTs. About a month ago, my 780 hung for no evident reason, it was not echoing characters, it was just cycling with the little green light on. I was destined to HALT it and then reboot it and fsck it, which would have taken 15-20 minutes and lost a bunch of work, so I figured that nothing horrible could happen if I HALTed it and tried to CONTINUE it. So I hit ^P and got a >>> prompt, typed HALT, got a HALT message and another >>>, then I typed CON and floyd came right back, hot to trot, processes still running, etc. No fsck, no nothin! I told this to my esteemed colleague harpo!ber and he told me to go play in traffic. Well, ber isn't here today, and harpo HALTed without a UNIX message for some unknown reason. Debbie Manning, harpo's operator, was pretty upset, and I said hold on. I typed CON to the >>> and harpo came right back to life! Enough to make you find religion. Anyway, I know that CONTINUING after HALTs isn't the solution to OS bugs, but I figure that if I can CONTINUE after a HALT which offers no other evidence, and if doesn't HALT again, then it's a pretty good idea. I'd appreciate it if other people would share their impressions and experiences on this matter. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491