DEV Community

Cover image for KillPort Advanced v2.0:Evolution of a Port Management Tool for macOS
Antonio
Antonio

Posted on • Edited on

KillPort Advanced v2.0:Evolution of a Port Management Tool for macOS

#devtools #shell #opensource #performance

During daily development, we've all dealt with the frustration of processes that won't release ports. The classic workflow of lsof -i :8080, copying the PID, then kill -9 becomes repetitive and tedious.

An excellent solution already existed: killport by jkfran, a blazing-fast cross-platform tool written in Rust. I used it for months and it works great. However, for my specific needs on macOS, I wanted something more: integrated monitoring, interactive mode, advanced range management. So I created KillPort Advanced v2.0.

Why Start from jkfran's killport?

Before explaining what I built, it's essential to give credit to jkfran. His killport is:

  • Blazing fast: written in Rust, excellent native performance
  • Cross-platform: works on macOS, Linux, Windows
  • Minimal: does one thing and does it well
  • Reliable: used by thousands of developers

Without this project as a benchmark reference, I wouldn't have had solid comparison parameters. My work was to build on top of these standards, adding specific features for more complex workflows.

My Approach: Advanced Shell Script

I chose to write a pure ZSH function for several reasons:

  • Zero dependencies: no compilation, no binaries
  • Native integration: blends with the macOS terminal
  • Easy to modify: just edit a script
  • Instant installation: source and go

The challenge was maintaining performance comparable to an optimized Rust binary.

Extended Features

Flexible Management 

# Single port
killport 3000

# Multiple ports
killport 3000 4000 8080

# Port range
killport 8000-8010
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Interactive Mode 

kpi  # Alias for --interactive

# Output:
# Listening processes:
# #    PORT     PROCESS           PID     
# 1    3000     node              1234    
# 2    8080     python3           5678    
# Select number (or 'q' to quit):
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Integrated Monitoring 

ports      # List all ports (alias for --list)
netstats   # Detailed network statistics (alias for --stats)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Watch Mode 

killport --watch 3000
# Continuously monitors and auto-kills
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Security

  • Protected ports (22, 80, 443, 3306, 5432) with mandatory confirmation
  • Dry-run mode (--dry-run)
  • Operation history (kph)

The Benchmark: Honest Comparison

I wanted to do a serious comparison with jkfran's killport installed via Homebrew. I created a complete benchmark suite that tests 5 different scenarios with detailed statistics.

Methodology

For each test I calculated:

  • Min (ms): minimum time
  • Max (ms): maximum time
  • Avg (ms): average time
  • StdDev (σ): standard deviation (consistency)

Tests performed:

  1. Kill single port (5 iterations)
  2. Kill 3 simultaneous ports (5 iterations)
  3. Kill range of 21 ports (3 iterations)
  4. List ports - Advanced only
  5. Network statistics - Advanced only

Detailed Results

TEST 1: Kill Single Port

Tool Min Max Avg StdDev Winner
killport (brew) 25ms 25ms 25ms ±0ms ✅
KillPort Advanced 27ms 27ms 27ms ±0ms

Difference: brew faster by 2ms (7%)

TEST 2: Kill 3 Simultaneous Ports

Tool Min Max Avg StdDev Winner
KillPort Advanced 31ms 31ms 31ms ±0ms ✅
killport (brew) 32ms 32ms 32ms ±0ms

Difference: Advanced faster by 1ms (3%)

TEST 3: Range of 21 Ports (9100-9120)

Tool Min Max Avg StdDev Result
KillPort Advanced 20ms 20ms 20ms ±0ms ⚖️
killport (brew) 20ms 20ms 20ms ±0ms ⚖️

Result: Identical performance

TEST 4 & 5: KillPort Advanced Exclusive Features

Feature Time Notes
--list 22ms Lists active ports
--stats 22ms Network statistics

Interpretation

Performance is virtually identical - we're talking about 2ms differences that are imperceptible in daily practice. The standard deviation of 0 indicates that both tools are extremely consistent and reliable.

According to BENCHMARK_GUIDE parameters:

  • ✅ All tests < 30ms = Excellent
  • ✅ σ = 0ms = Very consistent

Which One to Choose?

killport (brew) by jkfran - When to use it

✅ You want the bare minimum essentials

✅ You need cross-platform support (Linux, Windows)

✅ You prefer compiled binaries

✅ Pure performance is top priority

Installation: brew install killport

KillPort Advanced v2.0 - When to use it

✅ You work exclusively on macOS

✅ You need integrated monitoring (--list, --stats)

✅ You want interactive mode and watch mode

✅ You prefer easily modifiable shell scripts

✅ You need protections for critical ports

Installation:

git clone https://github.com/AntonioDEM/killport-advanced.git
cd killport-advanced
bash install_killport.sh
source ~/.zshrc
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Simplified Installation

The automatic installer:

  • Finds source files
  • Configures everything automatically
  • Creates convenient aliases (kp, kpi, ports, netstats, kph)
  • Includes uninstaller (killport-uninstall)

Practical Examples

Web Development 

# Express server stuck
killport 3000

# Multiple services
killport 3000 4000 8080

# Complete environment cleanup
killport 3000-3010
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Debugging 

# What's occupying ports?
ports

# Who's using most connections?
netstats
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Automation 

# Continuous auto-kill
killport --watch 3000 &
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Reproducible Benchmarks

I included the complete suite to allow anyone to verify the results:

cd killport-advanced/benchmark

# Run benchmark
./benchmark_original.sh

# Visualize with ASCII charts
./benchmark_visualizer_original.sh
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Generated outputs:

  • benchmark_results_TIMESTAMP.txt - Detailed report
  • benchmark_results_TIMESTAMP.csv - Data for analysis
  • benchmark_charts_TIMESTAMP.txt - ASCII charts (export)
  • benchmark_report_TIMESTAMP.md - Markdown report (export)

Complete guide: BENCHMARK_GUIDE.md

Results Transparency

I chose to publish all results, including those where jkfran's killport is faster. Honesty is fundamental: I'm not trying to "beat" the original project, but to offer an alternative with different features for different needs.

The 2ms difference in TEST 1 is negligible and probably related to the overhead of a shell function vs a compiled binary. But I gain monitoring, interactivity, and flexibility.

What I Learned

This project taught me:

  • Serious benchmarking: how to test correctly and honestly
  • Advanced shell scripting: complex argument and state management
  • Performance tuning: optimizing scripts to compete with binaries
  • Documentation: the importance of clear guides and examples

Credits and Acknowledgments

  • jkfran for original killport - fundamental as reference
  • The open source community for feedback and support
  • All project contributors

Useful Links

Conclusions

KillPort Advanced v2.0 doesn't want to replace jkfran's killport - that would be presumptuous. It's a macOS-specific evolution that adds advanced features while maintaining comparable performance.

If you're looking for a cross-platform, fast, and minimal tool, use jkfran's killport.

If you work on macOS and want monitoring, interactivity, and protections, try KillPort Advanced.

Both are open source, both work great.

If you find this project useful, leave a star on GitHub. And if you have suggestions or bugs, PRs are welcome.

Top comments (0)