Bug 51344 – Weird bogus error message

Bug 51344 - Weird bogus error message

Summary:	Weird bogus error message

Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	rhn_register (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.3
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Adrian Likins
QA Contact:	Jay Turner
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2001-08-09 14:30 EDT by Chris Ricker
Modified:	2015-01-07 18:50 EST (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

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

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: 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.