[Bug 1349941] Re: qemu-ppc segfault on simple hello world
So later on I had the ability to setup some more servers running with QEMU and found these packages were causing the same issues: lib32asan0 lib32atomic1 lib32gcc-4.8-dev lib32gcc1 lib32gcc1 lib32gomp1 lib32itm1 lib32quadmath0 libc6-x32 libx32atomic1 libx32gomp1 libx32itm1 libx32quadmath0 gcc-4.8-multilib libx32gcc-4.8-dev libx32gcc1 After removing those things started working again. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to qemu in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349941 Title: qemu-ppc segfault on simple hello world To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu/+bug/1349941/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 1349941] Re: qemu-ppc segfault on simple hello world
I was having this same issue with qemu-ppc both the 2.0 version and a handbuilt 2.1.0 version running on 14.04. By installing these packages the error disappeared: acl libaio1 libasound2 libasound2-data libasyncns0 libbrlapi0.6 libcaca0 libflac8 libogg0 libpulse0 librados2 librbd1 libsdl1.2debian libseccomp2 libsndfile1 libspice-server1 libvorbis0a libvorbisenc2 libxen-4.4 libxenstore3.0 libyajl2 sharutils I'm not sure which one of the libvorbis/flac/ogg/asound packages fixed it, but they were key for the segfault to go away. I noticed based on the post from jrr that packages qemu-system-common, qemu-keymaps, qemu-system-ppc, qemu-user-static pulled in those other packages as deps and tried just installing the packages along with qemu- user. Just wan'ted to add that to this post. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to qemu in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349941 Title: qemu-ppc segfault on simple hello world To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu/+bug/1349941/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 67497] Re: Claims success when backup fails
Edit: Of course the important line in the log file extract is "29 xferErrs" -- Claims success when backup fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/67497 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to backuppc in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 67497] Re: Claims success when backup fails
I think I have reproduced the behaviour again on BackupPC 3.0.0-4ubuntu1 on Ubuntu 8.04.3 Following the description: Results are /etc/ Backed up where permissions are liberal enough to allow reading the files The fstab for example has -rw-r--r-- 1 root root Enough for tar to read it. Restores Fail. BackupPC reports this. The shadow file for example - fails to get backed up entirely and does not even show up in the browse backups area even as an empty file. -rw-r- 1 root shadow /home has the same type of behaviour. Only by how liberal the default umask is, are users home directories able to be backed up. Tied down permissions will result in missing files with no errors reported. For my user mwalker a good example of this is that my .ssh folder does not feature in the Backups. But everything else with liberal perms does. Failure does not result and the Backup does not stop. So BackupPC claims success even when some of the files fail to be read. The only warning sign you get is in the log file one of the lines says: 2009-11-09 14:53:50 full backup 0 complete, 2737 files, bytes, 29 xferErrs ( bad files, bad shares, 29 other) but if the user sees no fail failures why would he have reason to view the logs. So yes, the user could come to restore his files and find the ones he needs were never backed up. I am about to use it in production and managed to avoid exposure to this problem entirely by using sudo from the beginning. Maybe its worth scripting part of the deb to add a few scripts restrictive tar and rsync with entries to be added to the sudoers file? Im trying to reason this behaviours existence as to whether its a genuine bug or just needed to ignore not being able to backup super sensitive things or locked files - but hang on that would only be useful for Windows for which a tar backup would need additional setup anyway. What do you think Ubuntu Bug guys? -- Claims success when backup fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/67497 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to backuppc in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 68729] Re: Loses all backups when disk is full
However a little research indicates that at least the behaviour that triggers this bug was apparently fixed sometime after 3.0.0beta3. I wish they would see the merit in using a Bug Tracker. See this post on backuppc-users here -> http://www.mail-archive.com /backuppc-us...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08713.html I am working to reproduce this behaviour with 3.0.1 in Karmic. Damn my server having too much space! -- Loses all backups when disk is full https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/68729 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to backuppc in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
