Bug 474446 - init script restart doesn't always restart condor
init script restart doesn't always restart condor
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise MRG
Classification: Red Hat
Component: grid (Show other bugs)
1.0
All Linux
low Severity medium
: 1.1
: ---
Assigned To: Matthew Farrellee
Jeff Needle
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-12-03 16:30 EST by Robert Rati
Modified: 2009-02-04 11:06 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-02-04 11:06:22 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Robert Rati 2008-12-03 16:30:40 EST
Description of problem:
[root@north-11 condor]# /etc/init.d/condor restart
Stopping Condor daemons:                                   [  OK  ]
Starting Condor daemons: 
[root@north-11 condor]# ps -ef | grep condor
root     27760 27153  0 15:10 pts/2    00:00:00 grep condor

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Matthew Farrellee 2008-12-03 16:35:56 EST
This is likely the result of switching to -QUIT the condor_master. When killproc is given a signal it never sleep while stopping the daemon. The lack of sleep means that on a restart (which is stop + start) the condor_master still exists when start is executed. The result is start bails out and the condor_master eventually exists.

It's probably sufficient to add a sleep 5 (which is the killproc delay) to stop() in the init script. Though that's kinda sad.
Comment 2 Matthew Farrellee 2008-12-03 16:48:01 EST
Actually, when you pass a signal to killproc() it no longer rm's the pidfile for you, so stop() must do that itself.
Comment 3 Matthew Farrellee 2008-12-03 17:15:45 EST
This is address in dffb2e11, will be part of 7.2.0-0.8
Comment 5 Jeff Needle 2008-12-18 08:27:08 EST
I'll buy this, based on code inspection and the fact that I haven't run into this recently.  No state "SEEMS_TO_BE_VERIFIED", so moving to VERIFIED.
Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2009-02-04 11:06:22 EST
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-2009-0036.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.