Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 09:07 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi, folks,
>>
>> The other admin updated torque without testing it on one machine, and
>> we had Issues. The first I knew was when a user reported qstat
>> returning
>> socket_connect_unix failed: 15137
>> socket_connect_unix failed: 15137
>> socket_connect_unix failed: 15137
>> qstat: cannot connect to server (null) (errno=15137) could not connect
>> to trqauthd
>>
>> Attempting to restart the pbs_server did the same. Working with my
>> manager, we found:
>> a) torque had been updated from 2.x to 4.2.10, which is huge.
>> b) Apparently, it no longer uses munged. Instead, it uses trqauthd,
>> and
>> that wasn't
>> in the updated packages.
>> c) We could not downgrade!!!
>> d) My manager updated from testing, and installed, and then running
>> trqauthd, and
>> restarting pbs_server, it appears to be working again.
>>
>> Should I be filing a bug report?
>
> You don not mention which version of CentOS you are using, but for
> CentOS-7 ..
Sorry, it's 6.6.
>
> The only torque I see is in epel-testing (which is their unstable
> branch) .. I would think that is the list for this discussion. Or did
> it come from somewhere else?
>
> Not that I mind it being discussed here too .. but you might get better
> results there.
Thanks, Johnny. I *just* posted an apology, that I realized it was an EPEL
issue.... Talk about an "upgrade disaster"! I think the other admin - he's
been here less than a year, is coming to understand why I'm paranoid about
some updates, and why we roll out some things stepwise, testing it
first.... I see he updated firefox & t-bird; I'm guessing that the most
current fixes the updates that broke language, etc, a week or two ago.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
