Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on December 2, 2018. The outage period for the upgrade will start at 0:00 UTC and have a duration of 12 hours
Bug 51344 - Weird bogus error message
Weird bogus error message
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: rhn_register (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Adrian Likins
Jay Turner
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2001-08-09 14:30 EDT by Chris Ricker
Modified: 2015-01-07 18:50 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-08-14 15:21:15 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Chris Ricker 2001-08-09 14:30:49 EDT
On stock beta3, when I run rhn_register, it reports:

A protocol error occured: Internal Server Error , attempt #1
A protocol error occured: Internal Server Error , attempt #2

on STDOUT.  However, it appears to have registered correctly since I am
then allowed to up2date....

In case it helps hunt down the session which generated this, I registered a
system called station11 at ~12:30 pm MDT.  The username and email for it
were kaboom@gatech.edu
Comment 1 Adrian Likins 2001-08-09 14:55:14 EDT
I'll take a look at the server logs on beta and see what pops up. 

Typically, we retried socket and server related errors 5 times before
failing, so just having two errors would seem to indicate a transient
failure. Could of been db issues (were currently doing lots of odd
things to that db, and internal server errors are a pretty typical
results of that...)

Hopefully the db issues will quite down soon, so I can be more sure
of this kind of errors.
Comment 2 Glen Foster 2001-08-09 16:11:21 EDT
This defect is considered SHOULD-FIX for Fairfax.
Comment 3 Adrian Likins 2001-08-14 14:40:08 EDT
Have you seen this happen again since?

The code is designed to be resilent to temporary network errors,
which appears to be the case here.
Comment 4 Chris Ricker 2001-08-14 15:21:10 EDT
I haven't seen it again
Comment 5 Jay Turner 2001-08-14 17:14:10 EDT
Closing this out then.

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