From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3 Description of problem: After upgrading to FC4 and the Cyrus IMAP package from extras, any attempt to do anything fails with the following syslog messages: Jun 16 22:20:53 gateway imaps[11267]: DBERROR A : db4 Jun 16 22:20:53 gateway imaps[11267]: DBERROR: critical database situation This, unfortunately, includes reconstruct, so there's no obvious way out of the problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): cyrus-imapd-2.2.12-6.fc4.i386.rpm How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Upgrade Cyrus-IMAPD from FC3 to FC4 2. 3. Actual Results: Cyrus wouldn't start, and wouldn't run. Expected Results: A functioning IMAP server. Additional info: I've tried everything I can think of, including rebuilding the package, rebuilding the FC3 package on FC4, and the like, all with the same results.
I concur. I, too, see this error. My errors look like this: Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber pop3[17601]: DBERROR <84>ÃÂ^H^H: db4 Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber pop3[17601]: DBERROR: critical database situation Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber imap[17599]: DBERROR ^DA^K^H: db4 Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber pop3s[17602]: DBERROR <84>ÃÂ^H^H: db4 Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber master[17600]: about to exec /usr/lib/cyrus-imapd/imapd Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber imaps[17600]: DBERROR ^DA^K^H: db4 Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber imaps[17600]: DBERROR: critical database situation Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber pop3s[17602]: DBERROR: critical database situation Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber imap[17599]: DBERROR: critical database situation Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber master[24481]: process 17596 exited, status 75 Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber master[24481]: service pop3 pid 17596 in READY state: terminated abnormally Jun 16 01:46:02 phyber master[24481]: process 17594 exited, status 75
This is a duplicate of bug #160317, please see that bug report as there are several work around solutions posted there. The last suggestion by Simon Matter may represent the easiest. If you follow his suggestion I would appreciate your updating bug #160317 with your results, we would like to ascertain if that is a viable field solution. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 160317 ***