Bug 460054
Summary: | fence_apc fails with pexpect exception | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Nate Straz <nstraz> | |
Component: | cman | Assignee: | Marek Grac <mgrac> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Cluster QE <mspqa-list> | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | medium | |||
Version: | 5.3 | CC: | cluster-maint, edamato | |
Target Milestone: | rc | |||
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | All | |||
OS: | Linux | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 501586 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-01-20 21:51:55 UTC | Type: | --- | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Embargoed: | ||||
Bug Depends On: | ||||
Bug Blocks: | 501586 |
Description
Nate Straz
2008-08-25 20:19:03 UTC
Unable to reproduce on APC 7951 tested (500x on, status, off). If I'm right and it always fails on line 197 then we can just ignore this exception as it doesn't matter if we correctly close the connection as it will be closed anyway in next step. Can you tell me type of your device (or even better let me access it for these tests) ? About System Model Number : AP9606 Serial Number : WA0124008454 Manufacture Date : 02/15/2002 Hardware Revision : G9 My guess was that the process it was trying to terminate already exitted so the kill failed. I'm not sure what the OSError exception was in this case. Fixed as proposed solution An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0189.html |