Description of problem: httpd service will not start. (httpd dead but subsys locked) [root@fail ~]# service httpd start Starting httpd: [ OK ] [root@fail ~]# service httpd status httpd dead but subsys locked [root@fail ~]# rpm -q httpd httpd-2.2.11-8.i586 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): [root@fail ~]# rpm -q httpd httpd-2.2.11-8.i586 How reproducible: install fedora 11 beta, update the system to current patches in rawhide. then run "service httpd start" and "service httpd status" Actual results: Expected results: expected result is for the service to start Additional info:
Created attachment 343439 [details] sos report (fedora 11 i386 beta) attaching sosreport of my system. (fedora 11 i386 beta) Please let me know what you all need to resolve this.
I have disabled selinux (just as a precaution) and have deleted the pidfile / lockfile for httpd, still the same result. This is very strange, and I di not know how to troubleshoot. Also, I have removed a few modules / conf files that are optional for httpd as a 2nd precaution. Same result.
Created attachment 343478 [details] here is the strace of httpd (I named it "file") bzipped here is the strace of httpd (I named it "file") bzipped, perhaps this can help with the troubleshooting process.
Try "yum erase mod_*" and see if httpd itself works. ISTR one of the random third-party modules was breaking like this.
The directory /etc/httpd/run/mod_fcgid is missing. As root, mkdir /etc/httpd/run/mod_fcgid and then try service httpd start. This solved the problem for me.
Reported as bug #501123 for mod_fcgid
What's the output of "rpm -V httpd"? I suspect you've lost the symlink /etc/httpd/run -> ../../var/run
[root@samson httpd]# rpm -V httpd S.5....T. c /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf As comment #2 in #501123, I have the symlink /etc/httpd/run -> ../../var/run/http
Correction to comment #8, symlink should have stated: /etc/httpd/run -> ../../var/run/httpd
Right - that directory moved. Closing as dupe. (Sorry Paul, didn't expect this would hit any third-party modules, otherwise I'd have given a wider heads-up) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 501123 ***