On Tue, 14 May 2013, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On 05/10/13 19:02, Yehuda Sadeh wrote: > > Sounds to me like package versioning mismastch. Could it be that one > > of the ceph packages was on a different version (e.g., librados). > > I attempted to install and run radosgw 0.61.1 on a system with a 0.56.4 > librados and it segfaulted with the same backtrace as the one in this thread. > > If a newer radosgw can't work with an older librados, this should be reflected > on the package relationships -- hopefully without nasty Breaks/Conflicts, but > with a proper librados SONAME bump that will allow coinstability between > librados2 and e.g. librados3. Or symbol versioning could be employed to > provide backwards compatibility. > > This installed-but-segfaulting combination of packages shouldn't be allowed by > apt to exist on the system. FWIW, if these were packages in Debian (and, > presumably, Ubuntu), that would be a severity: serious/release critical bug. I believe this is actually a problem with radosgw statically linking some of the same stuff that librados includes, and not with the librados ABI changes. We need to fix that somehow.. In the meantime, though, setting the radosgw package to require a matching librados2 ought to do the trick. > It'd also be nice to be able to do things like mixing newer radosgw while also > keeping the old librados2 on the system. My use case is that I have monitors > and radosgw on the same boxes and I'd like to keep monitors on bobtail, while > at the same time use some of the much needed radosgw cuttlefish features. ceph-common need sto match the librados2 version, but ceph (which contains ceph-mon) does not, so you should be able to have dufferent ceph-mon and radosgw versions if we do the above. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
