Any issue if Zombie state is not cleared?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I have a customer unit in which java process has become Zombie and remained there for some time now. If the unit is restarted, then it will be cleared. However, the unit is not restarted and another java process is up and running. Is there any issue if this zombie state is kept as it is without clearing? Will it affect in any way (performance or slowness)?
linux process
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I have a customer unit in which java process has become Zombie and remained there for some time now. If the unit is restarted, then it will be cleared. However, the unit is not restarted and another java process is up and running. Is there any issue if this zombie state is kept as it is without clearing? Will it affect in any way (performance or slowness)?
linux process
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I have a customer unit in which java process has become Zombie and remained there for some time now. If the unit is restarted, then it will be cleared. However, the unit is not restarted and another java process is up and running. Is there any issue if this zombie state is kept as it is without clearing? Will it affect in any way (performance or slowness)?
linux process
I have a customer unit in which java process has become Zombie and remained there for some time now. If the unit is restarted, then it will be cleared. However, the unit is not restarted and another java process is up and running. Is there any issue if this zombie state is kept as it is without clearing? Will it affect in any way (performance or slowness)?
linux process
edited Jun 26 at 11:10
SivaPrasath
3,88611737
3,88611737
asked Jun 26 at 9:49
Ravi
165213
165213
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
Zombie process won't have any effect on performance or slowness as Zombie processes donâÂÂt use up any system resources.
Note:- Practically, it is still using the PID (which is a limited resource), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated.
Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be
significant on systems with very limited memory.
Problem caused by zombie process
Each zombie process retains its process ID . Linux systems have a
finite number of process IDs â 32767 by default on 32-bit
systems.If zombies are accumulating at a very quick rate ,the entire
pool of available PIDs will eventually become assigned to zombie
processes, preventing other processes from launching.
Note: On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
However, a few zombie processes hanging around are no problem â although they do indicate a bug with their parent process on your system.
Explanation:
When a process dies on Linux, it isnâÂÂt all removed from memory immediately â its process descriptor stays in memory.
The processâÂÂs status becomes EXIT_ZOMBIE
and the processâÂÂs parent is notified that its child process has died with the SIGCHLD
signal.
The parent process is then supposed to execute the wait() system call to read the dead processâÂÂs exit status and other information. This allows the parent process to get information from the dead process. After wait() is called, the zombie process is completely removed from memory.
This normally happens very quickly, so you wonâÂÂt see zombie processes accumulating on your system. However, if a parent process isnâÂÂt programmed properly and never calls wait(), its zombie children will stick around in memory until theyâÂÂre cleaned up.
Resolution:
You canâÂÂt kill zombie processes as you can kill normal processes with the SIGKILL signal â zombie processes are already dead.
One way to kill zombie is by sending the SIGCHLD signal to the parent process. This signal tells the parent process to execute the wait() system call and clean up its zombie children. Send the signal with the kill command, replacing pid in the command below with the parent processâÂÂs PID:
kill -s SIGCHLD pid
When the process that created the zombies ends, init inherits the zombie processes and becomes their new parent. (init is the first process started on Linux at boot and is assigned PID 1.)
Note:- From Linux 3.4 onwards processes can issue theÃÂ prctl()ÃÂ system call with theÃÂ PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPERÃÂ option, and as a result they, not process #1, will become the parent of their orphaned descendant processes. Refer: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132ÃÂ ÃÂ
INIT then executes the wait() system call to clean up its zombie children, so init will make short work of the zombies. You can restart the parent process after closing it.
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly, zombies are not a big issue. They are a 'dead'-ish process, which takes no CPU time, and any allocated memory should have been freed by the process before dying. The only resource they actually take is an entry in your process list. Depending on your system, you can have a maximum allowed number of threads, and having zombies can make you reach this limit faster for no reason.
However : Zombies usually appear because of bad/buggy code, where the programmer forgot to check the states of its child processes. This can be intentional, but often it is not. Bad/buggy code will often also handle memory in a bad special way, and Not free some allocated resources. If this is the case, these resources will stay allocated for the zombie, until it is fully terminated.
Edit : If the process is a java program, not freed memory should not be an issue, as the java garbage collector takes care of everything.
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
Zombie process won't have any effect on performance or slowness as Zombie processes donâÂÂt use up any system resources.
Note:- Practically, it is still using the PID (which is a limited resource), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated.
Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be
significant on systems with very limited memory.
Problem caused by zombie process
Each zombie process retains its process ID . Linux systems have a
finite number of process IDs â 32767 by default on 32-bit
systems.If zombies are accumulating at a very quick rate ,the entire
pool of available PIDs will eventually become assigned to zombie
processes, preventing other processes from launching.
Note: On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
However, a few zombie processes hanging around are no problem â although they do indicate a bug with their parent process on your system.
Explanation:
When a process dies on Linux, it isnâÂÂt all removed from memory immediately â its process descriptor stays in memory.
The processâÂÂs status becomes EXIT_ZOMBIE
and the processâÂÂs parent is notified that its child process has died with the SIGCHLD
signal.
The parent process is then supposed to execute the wait() system call to read the dead processâÂÂs exit status and other information. This allows the parent process to get information from the dead process. After wait() is called, the zombie process is completely removed from memory.
This normally happens very quickly, so you wonâÂÂt see zombie processes accumulating on your system. However, if a parent process isnâÂÂt programmed properly and never calls wait(), its zombie children will stick around in memory until theyâÂÂre cleaned up.
Resolution:
You canâÂÂt kill zombie processes as you can kill normal processes with the SIGKILL signal â zombie processes are already dead.
One way to kill zombie is by sending the SIGCHLD signal to the parent process. This signal tells the parent process to execute the wait() system call and clean up its zombie children. Send the signal with the kill command, replacing pid in the command below with the parent processâÂÂs PID:
kill -s SIGCHLD pid
When the process that created the zombies ends, init inherits the zombie processes and becomes their new parent. (init is the first process started on Linux at boot and is assigned PID 1.)
Note:- From Linux 3.4 onwards processes can issue theÃÂ prctl()ÃÂ system call with theÃÂ PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPERÃÂ option, and as a result they, not process #1, will become the parent of their orphaned descendant processes. Refer: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132ÃÂ ÃÂ
INIT then executes the wait() system call to clean up its zombie children, so init will make short work of the zombies. You can restart the parent process after closing it.
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
Zombie process won't have any effect on performance or slowness as Zombie processes donâÂÂt use up any system resources.
Note:- Practically, it is still using the PID (which is a limited resource), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated.
Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be
significant on systems with very limited memory.
Problem caused by zombie process
Each zombie process retains its process ID . Linux systems have a
finite number of process IDs â 32767 by default on 32-bit
systems.If zombies are accumulating at a very quick rate ,the entire
pool of available PIDs will eventually become assigned to zombie
processes, preventing other processes from launching.
Note: On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
However, a few zombie processes hanging around are no problem â although they do indicate a bug with their parent process on your system.
Explanation:
When a process dies on Linux, it isnâÂÂt all removed from memory immediately â its process descriptor stays in memory.
The processâÂÂs status becomes EXIT_ZOMBIE
and the processâÂÂs parent is notified that its child process has died with the SIGCHLD
signal.
The parent process is then supposed to execute the wait() system call to read the dead processâÂÂs exit status and other information. This allows the parent process to get information from the dead process. After wait() is called, the zombie process is completely removed from memory.
This normally happens very quickly, so you wonâÂÂt see zombie processes accumulating on your system. However, if a parent process isnâÂÂt programmed properly and never calls wait(), its zombie children will stick around in memory until theyâÂÂre cleaned up.
Resolution:
You canâÂÂt kill zombie processes as you can kill normal processes with the SIGKILL signal â zombie processes are already dead.
One way to kill zombie is by sending the SIGCHLD signal to the parent process. This signal tells the parent process to execute the wait() system call and clean up its zombie children. Send the signal with the kill command, replacing pid in the command below with the parent processâÂÂs PID:
kill -s SIGCHLD pid
When the process that created the zombies ends, init inherits the zombie processes and becomes their new parent. (init is the first process started on Linux at boot and is assigned PID 1.)
Note:- From Linux 3.4 onwards processes can issue theÃÂ prctl()ÃÂ system call with theÃÂ PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPERÃÂ option, and as a result they, not process #1, will become the parent of their orphaned descendant processes. Refer: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132ÃÂ ÃÂ
INIT then executes the wait() system call to clean up its zombie children, so init will make short work of the zombies. You can restart the parent process after closing it.
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
Zombie process won't have any effect on performance or slowness as Zombie processes donâÂÂt use up any system resources.
Note:- Practically, it is still using the PID (which is a limited resource), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated.
Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be
significant on systems with very limited memory.
Problem caused by zombie process
Each zombie process retains its process ID . Linux systems have a
finite number of process IDs â 32767 by default on 32-bit
systems.If zombies are accumulating at a very quick rate ,the entire
pool of available PIDs will eventually become assigned to zombie
processes, preventing other processes from launching.
Note: On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
However, a few zombie processes hanging around are no problem â although they do indicate a bug with their parent process on your system.
Explanation:
When a process dies on Linux, it isnâÂÂt all removed from memory immediately â its process descriptor stays in memory.
The processâÂÂs status becomes EXIT_ZOMBIE
and the processâÂÂs parent is notified that its child process has died with the SIGCHLD
signal.
The parent process is then supposed to execute the wait() system call to read the dead processâÂÂs exit status and other information. This allows the parent process to get information from the dead process. After wait() is called, the zombie process is completely removed from memory.
This normally happens very quickly, so you wonâÂÂt see zombie processes accumulating on your system. However, if a parent process isnâÂÂt programmed properly and never calls wait(), its zombie children will stick around in memory until theyâÂÂre cleaned up.
Resolution:
You canâÂÂt kill zombie processes as you can kill normal processes with the SIGKILL signal â zombie processes are already dead.
One way to kill zombie is by sending the SIGCHLD signal to the parent process. This signal tells the parent process to execute the wait() system call and clean up its zombie children. Send the signal with the kill command, replacing pid in the command below with the parent processâÂÂs PID:
kill -s SIGCHLD pid
When the process that created the zombies ends, init inherits the zombie processes and becomes their new parent. (init is the first process started on Linux at boot and is assigned PID 1.)
Note:- From Linux 3.4 onwards processes can issue theÃÂ prctl()ÃÂ system call with theÃÂ PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPERÃÂ option, and as a result they, not process #1, will become the parent of their orphaned descendant processes. Refer: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132ÃÂ ÃÂ
INIT then executes the wait() system call to clean up its zombie children, so init will make short work of the zombies. You can restart the parent process after closing it.
Zombie process won't have any effect on performance or slowness as Zombie processes donâÂÂt use up any system resources.
Note:- Practically, it is still using the PID (which is a limited resource), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated.
Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be
significant on systems with very limited memory.
Problem caused by zombie process
Each zombie process retains its process ID . Linux systems have a
finite number of process IDs â 32767 by default on 32-bit
systems.If zombies are accumulating at a very quick rate ,the entire
pool of available PIDs will eventually become assigned to zombie
processes, preventing other processes from launching.
Note: On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
However, a few zombie processes hanging around are no problem â although they do indicate a bug with their parent process on your system.
Explanation:
When a process dies on Linux, it isnâÂÂt all removed from memory immediately â its process descriptor stays in memory.
The processâÂÂs status becomes EXIT_ZOMBIE
and the processâÂÂs parent is notified that its child process has died with the SIGCHLD
signal.
The parent process is then supposed to execute the wait() system call to read the dead processâÂÂs exit status and other information. This allows the parent process to get information from the dead process. After wait() is called, the zombie process is completely removed from memory.
This normally happens very quickly, so you wonâÂÂt see zombie processes accumulating on your system. However, if a parent process isnâÂÂt programmed properly and never calls wait(), its zombie children will stick around in memory until theyâÂÂre cleaned up.
Resolution:
You canâÂÂt kill zombie processes as you can kill normal processes with the SIGKILL signal â zombie processes are already dead.
One way to kill zombie is by sending the SIGCHLD signal to the parent process. This signal tells the parent process to execute the wait() system call and clean up its zombie children. Send the signal with the kill command, replacing pid in the command below with the parent processâÂÂs PID:
kill -s SIGCHLD pid
When the process that created the zombies ends, init inherits the zombie processes and becomes their new parent. (init is the first process started on Linux at boot and is assigned PID 1.)
Note:- From Linux 3.4 onwards processes can issue theÃÂ prctl()ÃÂ system call with theÃÂ PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPERÃÂ option, and as a result they, not process #1, will become the parent of their orphaned descendant processes. Refer: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132ÃÂ ÃÂ
INIT then executes the wait() system call to clean up its zombie children, so init will make short work of the zombies. You can restart the parent process after closing it.
edited Jun 28 at 10:50
Jeff Schaller
30.8k846104
30.8k846104
answered Jun 26 at 10:04
Arushix
9968
9968
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
 |Â
show 7 more comments
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
Is there any chance where wait() itself fails?
â Ravi
Jun 26 at 10:09
3
3
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
On 64-bit systems, you can increase the maximum PID, see unix.stackexchange.com/a/16884/170373
â ilkkachu
Jun 26 at 10:33
1
1
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
The part about reparenting is wrong, too. unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 Ironically, making programs subreapers that do not expect to be is an easy way to cause long-term zombie processes.
â JdeBP
Jun 26 at 11:34
2
2
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
The parent will already have received a SIGCHLD when the process that is now a zombie died.
â Ãngel
Jun 26 at 19:53
2
2
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
Strictly speaking it's not correct to say that it uses no resources. It is still using the PID (which is a limited resources), and the kernel data structures for the process are still allocated. Usually, this won't matter much, but the kernel memory usage can be significant on systems with very limited memory.
â Austin Hemmelgarn
Jun 27 at 1:18
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly, zombies are not a big issue. They are a 'dead'-ish process, which takes no CPU time, and any allocated memory should have been freed by the process before dying. The only resource they actually take is an entry in your process list. Depending on your system, you can have a maximum allowed number of threads, and having zombies can make you reach this limit faster for no reason.
However : Zombies usually appear because of bad/buggy code, where the programmer forgot to check the states of its child processes. This can be intentional, but often it is not. Bad/buggy code will often also handle memory in a bad special way, and Not free some allocated resources. If this is the case, these resources will stay allocated for the zombie, until it is fully terminated.
Edit : If the process is a java program, not freed memory should not be an issue, as the java garbage collector takes care of everything.
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly, zombies are not a big issue. They are a 'dead'-ish process, which takes no CPU time, and any allocated memory should have been freed by the process before dying. The only resource they actually take is an entry in your process list. Depending on your system, you can have a maximum allowed number of threads, and having zombies can make you reach this limit faster for no reason.
However : Zombies usually appear because of bad/buggy code, where the programmer forgot to check the states of its child processes. This can be intentional, but often it is not. Bad/buggy code will often also handle memory in a bad special way, and Not free some allocated resources. If this is the case, these resources will stay allocated for the zombie, until it is fully terminated.
Edit : If the process is a java program, not freed memory should not be an issue, as the java garbage collector takes care of everything.
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly, zombies are not a big issue. They are a 'dead'-ish process, which takes no CPU time, and any allocated memory should have been freed by the process before dying. The only resource they actually take is an entry in your process list. Depending on your system, you can have a maximum allowed number of threads, and having zombies can make you reach this limit faster for no reason.
However : Zombies usually appear because of bad/buggy code, where the programmer forgot to check the states of its child processes. This can be intentional, but often it is not. Bad/buggy code will often also handle memory in a bad special way, and Not free some allocated resources. If this is the case, these resources will stay allocated for the zombie, until it is fully terminated.
Edit : If the process is a java program, not freed memory should not be an issue, as the java garbage collector takes care of everything.
Mostly, zombies are not a big issue. They are a 'dead'-ish process, which takes no CPU time, and any allocated memory should have been freed by the process before dying. The only resource they actually take is an entry in your process list. Depending on your system, you can have a maximum allowed number of threads, and having zombies can make you reach this limit faster for no reason.
However : Zombies usually appear because of bad/buggy code, where the programmer forgot to check the states of its child processes. This can be intentional, but often it is not. Bad/buggy code will often also handle memory in a bad special way, and Not free some allocated resources. If this is the case, these resources will stay allocated for the zombie, until it is fully terminated.
Edit : If the process is a java program, not freed memory should not be an issue, as the java garbage collector takes care of everything.
answered Jun 26 at 9:59
Vince
1213
1213
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
add a comment |Â
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
3
3
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
In fact, not feed memory isn't issue it most OSes in all languages. System will free all memory except tiny amount for parent process.
â val
Jun 26 at 14:30
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451975%2fany-issue-if-zombie-state-is-not-cleared%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password