On 7/11/23 9:43 AM, Thierry Bordaz wrote:
Hello,
Unfortunately the original backtrace did not contain symbol and I can
not say if the bug was already fixed
Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f7c42a4e700 (LWP 22323)):
#0 0x00007f7c54258c9c in ??? () at
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dirsrv/plugins/libback-ldbm.so
#1 0x00007f7c5425b4c4 in ??? () at
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dirsrv/plugins/libback-ldbm.so
#2 0x00007f7c57ac2941 in ??? () at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnspr4.so
#3 0x00007f7c57a61ea7 in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at
pthread_create.c:477
#4 0x00007f7c578caa2f in clone () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:95
I recall some bugs were recently fixed related to compaction
interval/tod but not sure they were related.
Yeah I don't recall any crashes related to DB compaction. The recent
"fixes" were for the scheduling of compaction.
But 389-ds-base-1.4.4 is not maintained anymore so it is missing A LOT
of fixes (probably including some CVE's). I strongly suggest getting to
389-ds-base-2.x sooner than later.
Mark
Could you install the debugsource and collect a new backtrace ?
regards
thierry
On 7/11/23 14:18, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thank you for your quick answer!
>
> The OP of this thread has already posted a backtrace:
>
https://lists.pagure.io/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org/m...
>
> We use the same version as the OP (1.4.4.11) :
>
> $ sudo apt list 389-ds-base
> 389-ds-base/oldstable,now 1.4.4.11-2 amd64 [installed]
>
> which is the one provided by Debian 11 / bullseye, and which has not
> changed for a while.
>
> We don't use replication on these instances.
>
> If this backtrace is not sufficient, I am happy to reproduce the
> steps on a dedicated environment.
>
> Dependening on your analysis, we will probably have to notify Debian,
> but I am not sure whether they will want to patch it for Debian 11.
> So, maybe I will have to look at Debian 12 / bookworm (the new
> 'Debian stable'), and see whether the issue still occurs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mathieu
>
> On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 11:51 +0200, Thierry Bordaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What version are you running ? Are you running a replicated topology,
>> what is the crashing server (supplier, consumer, hub) ?
>>
>> Do you have a backtrace of the crash (with debugsource) ?
>>
>> Unfortunately I doubt compaction can be disabled (it is part of the
>> checkpointing that is mandatory). It can be delayed with compaction
>> interval or timeof day but not suppressed.
>>
>> best regards
>> thierry
>>
>> On 7/11/23 09:51, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> we have exactly the same problem (also on Debian 11). 389-ds
>>> crashes when compacting.
>>>
>>> Is there a related bug ticket to track?
>>>
>>> Is it possible / advisable to disable compacting? (our instances
>>> are critical but very small, with only credentials in them)
>>> If yes, how can it be done?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> Mathieu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>>>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>>> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives:
>>>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
>>> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>>>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>>
>
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List
Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List
Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fe...
Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
Directory Server Development Team