On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:35:31AM -0000, Will Uther wrote:
> I also looked in the logs to see what was happening on boot with the
> change and I noticed:
>
> May 10 11:02:55 willvo sshd[2981]: Received signal 15; terminating.
> May 10 11:02:55 willvo ntpd[3721]: ntpd exiting on signal 15
>
> but both seem to be running. Postfix also reloads its configuration.
> Is someone (upstart?) telling all daemons to reload their configs for
> some reason?
Thanks for figuring this out. This is probably the root cause of the
issue. I've seen similar behavior with sshd - could you describe your
network configuration? Are you using network-manager or
/etc/network/intrefaces? Are you using a static configuration or rely on
dhcp?
> It seems there are two problems here - the signal being sent, and
> mysqld_safe poor response to receiving it. It would be nice to get to
> the bottom of each of them.
>
Agreed. It seems that the latter has been identified and a workaround is
described in this bug. I think the former should also be well understood
before pushing anything to a *stable* release. A known broken behaviour
with a workaround is better then pushing an update that breaks existing
production systems.
Hi Will,
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:35:31AM -0000, Will Uther wrote:
> I also looked in the logs to see what was happening on boot with the
> change and I noticed:
>
> May 10 11:02:55 willvo sshd[2981]: Received signal 15; terminating.
> May 10 11:02:55 willvo ntpd[3721]: ntpd exiting on signal 15
>
> but both seem to be running. Postfix also reloads its configuration.
> Is someone (upstart?) telling all daemons to reload their configs for
> some reason?
Thanks for figuring this out. This is probably the root cause of the intrefaces? Are you using a static configuration or rely on
issue. I've seen similar behavior with sshd - could you describe your
network configuration? Are you using network-manager or
/etc/network/
dhcp?
> It seems there are two problems here - the signal being sent, and
> mysqld_safe poor response to receiving it. It would be nice to get to
> the bottom of each of them.
>
Agreed. It seems that the latter has been identified and a workaround is
described in this bug. I think the former should also be well understood
before pushing anything to a *stable* release. A known broken behaviour
with a workaround is better then pushing an update that breaks existing
production systems.
-- www.ubuntu. com
Mathias Gug
Ubuntu Developer http://