Description of problem: # service named stop Stopping named_sdb: [FAILED] # ps -A |grep named 2933 ? 00:00:00 named_sdb # service named restart Stopping named_sdb: [FAILED] Starting named_sdb: named_sdb: already running [FAILED] It's the init file's fault. When stopping, line 197 tries to kill rndc. If rndc is not running or for some other reason isn't killed, the exit code is != 0, so none of the code in lines 200-214 gets executed. If I comment out the if/fi statements in lines 199/215, I get # service named restart Stopping named_sdb: .......................................[ OK ]... Starting named_sdb: [ OK ] The dots after "Stopping named_sdb" are printed two seconds apart, so the shutdown takes more than a minute. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 9.3.3-9.0.1.el5 How reproducible: Every time
Patch is change line 199 to if ! [ $RETVAL -eq 0 ]; then But it's not standard way that rndc fails. Could you please call `rndc stop` explicitly and attach output (why rndc fails). Also please attach log what exactly is doing during stopping. Thanks, Adam
rndc failed to stop the server because I hadn't configured it. The log said: general: rejected command channel message from 127.0.0.1#53464 If I leave rndc unconfigured and change line 199 as you suggest, the script stops the server with killproc and the delay. If I configure rndc, the script with your patch also stops the server, but now through rndc and without the delay. Thus, your patch seems to be the right solution either way, with or without rndc misconfiguration.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
*** Bug 423101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
As of May 04, 2008, this bug seems to be present in Fedora 9 (rawhide) too. Razvan
(In reply to comment #9) > As of May 04, 2008, this bug seems to be present in Fedora 9 (rawhide) too. > > Razvan Hm, are you sure this is same bug? This should be fixed in all supported Fedoras.
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 the 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/RHSA-2008-0300.html