sks-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sks-devel] keyserver.rainydayz.org back up


From: Andy Ruddock
Subject: Re: [Sks-devel] keyserver.rainydayz.org back up
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:22:24 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130119 Firefox/10.0.11esrpre Iceape/2.7.12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 06:19 PM, Andy Ruddock wrote:
>> Hi all,
> 
> Hi Andy, ...
> 
> 
>> mid-December, so tried copying that but ran into "out of space
>> for mutex" errors each time I tried to start sks - even after
>> running "sks cleandb".
> 
> Did you try adding a DB_CONFIG file (as of 1.1.4 SKS allows this to
> be used for new builds as well by having the file in the root DB
> dir). Once this file is added you'll have to remove the BDB
> environment (SKS will re-create it), see e.g [0]. That usually
> solves mutex errors.

There's a DB_CONFIG in the DB directory and another in the PTree
directory. I don't remember at which point I copied them in - I
possibly didn't clean the environment afterwards.

> 
> ...
> 
> 
>> Anyway, back up and running - I hope the "sks build" bug gets 
>> fixed, It's been reported and exists within their bug reporting 
>> system.
> 
> 
> 
> For what it is worth I don't see anything in the SKS BTS at [1].
> Which version of BDB you're using would be interesting to know to
> try to replicate (in SKS 1.1.4 try `sks version` to get this
> information)

I'm using the version that ships with Debian Wheezy (testing), which
at the moment has the version number libdb5.1.29-5
I'm not sure how that relates to upstream and what patches may have
been applied.

The issue is in the Debian bug tracking system :

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699848

I presume they would have reported any bugs back upstream.

Considering that the machines I use as "servers" are Pentium P4
machines, that between them host mail, web, ftp, ssh & sks services -
I'm impressed that they handled the workload as well as they did.

(I don't expect either machine to last very much longer and am in the
process of investigating the best way to replace them)

- -- 
Andy Ruddock
- ------------
address@hidden (GPG Key ID 0xB0324245)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=ecfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]