I''ve been trying to get the snmp monitoring with cacti going, but
I''ve
run into a snag. After I set everything up and run an snmp walk to test
the setup, the subagent crashes. Here is part of what I get from strace:
gettimeofday({1169063878, 909115}, NULL) = 0
select(8, [4 6 7], NULL, NULL, {6, 52205}) = 1 (in [4], left {6, 56000})
read(4, " ", 1) = 1
writev(2, [{"/opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/"..., 42}, {":
", 2},
{"symbol lookup error", 19}, {": ", 2},
{"/usr/lib/libnetsnmpagent.so.5", 29}, {": ", 2},
{"undefined symbol:
hosts_ctl", 27}, {"", 0}, {"", 0}, {"\n",
1}], 10) = 124
exit_group(127) = ?
Process 29587 detached
I''m running fds 1.0.2 on FC4. If someone could point me in the right
direction, I''d appreciate it.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott A. Phipps wrote:> I''ve been trying to get the snmp monitoring with cacti going, but I''ve > run into a snag. After I set everything up and run an snmp walk to test > the setup, the subagent crashes. Here is part of what I get from strace: > > gettimeofday({1169063878, 909115}, NULL) = 0 > select(8, [4 6 7], NULL, NULL, {6, 52205}) = 1 (in [4], left {6, 56000}) > read(4, " ", 1) = 1 > writev(2, [{"/opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/"..., 42}, {": ", 2}, > {"symbol lookup error", 19}, {": ", 2}, > {"/usr/lib/libnetsnmpagent.so.5", 29}, {": ", 2}, {"undefined symbol: > hosts_ctl", 27}, {"", 0}, {"", 0}, {"\n", 1}], 10) = 124 > exit_group(127) = ? > Process 29587 detached > > I''m running fds 1.0.2 on FC4. If someone could point me in the right > direction, I''d appreciate it. >Hmm - looks like it''s using the wrong version of one of the libs? Do rpm -qa|grep net-snmp then ldd /opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/ldap-agent> Thanks, > > Scott > > > -- > Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users >
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:14 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote:> Hmm - looks like it''s using the wrong version of one of the libs? Do > rpm -qa|grep net-snmp > then > ldd /opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/ldap-agent> Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-usersHere are the results. net-snmp-libs-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 net-snmp-devel-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 net-snmp-utils-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 net-snmp-perl-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 net-snmp-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 [root@newhulk ~]# ldd /opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/ldap-agent linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00eeb000) libdl.so.2 => ../lib/libdl.so.2 (0x009ef000) libnetsnmp.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmp.so.5 (0x004e0000) libnetsnmpagent.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmpagent.so.5 (0x00193000) libnetsnmpmibs.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmpmibs.so.5 (0x001cc000) libnetsnmphelpers.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmphelpers.so.5 (0x00663000) libcrypto.so.5 => ../lib/libcrypto.so.5 (0x002ce000) libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00c3a000) libm.so.6 => ../lib/libm.so.6 (0x009c8000) libgcc_s.so.1 => ../lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00c1c000) libc.so.6 => ../lib/libc.so.6 (0x0089d000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x0087f000) libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x009f5000) Thanks, Scott
Scott A. Phipps wrote:> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:14 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote: > >> Hmm - looks like it''s using the wrong version of one of the libs? Do >> rpm -qa|grep net-snmp >> then >> ldd /opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/ldap-agent >> > > >> Fedora-directory-users mailing list >> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users >> > > Here are the results. > > net-snmp-libs-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 > net-snmp-devel-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 > net-snmp-utils-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 > net-snmp-perl-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 > net-snmp-5.2.1.2-fc4.1 > [root@newhulk ~]# ldd /opt/fedora-ds/bin/slapd/server/ldap-agent > linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00eeb000) > libdl.so.2 => ../lib/libdl.so.2 (0x009ef000) > libnetsnmp.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmp.so.5 (0x004e0000) > libnetsnmpagent.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmpagent.so.5 > (0x00193000) > libnetsnmpmibs.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmpmibs.so.5 (0x001cc000) > libnetsnmphelpers.so.5 => /usr/lib/libnetsnmphelpers.so.5 > (0x00663000) > libcrypto.so.5 => ../lib/libcrypto.so.5 (0x002ce000) > libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00c3a000) > libm.so.6 => ../lib/libm.so.6 (0x009c8000) > libgcc_s.so.1 => ../lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00c1c000) > libc.so.6 => ../lib/libc.so.6 (0x0089d000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x0087f000) > libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x009f5000) >hosts_ctl is defined in libwrap.so - do you have tcp_wrappers installed e.g. rpm -qa|grep tcp_wrappers> Thanks, > > Scott > > -- > Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users >
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 08:45 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote:> hosts_ctl is defined in libwrap.so - do you have tcp_wrappers installed e.g. > rpm -qa|grep tcp_wrapperstcp_wrappers-7.6-39 is installed> -- > Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
Scott A. Phipps wrote:> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 08:45 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote: > > >> hosts_ctl is defined in libwrap.so - do you have tcp_wrappers installed e.g. >> rpm -qa|grep tcp_wrappers >> > > tcp_wrappers-7.6-39 is installed >Hmm - looks like ldap-agent in FDS 1.0.2 is just broken - it''s not linked with libwrap. However, on 1.0.4, it is. Here is the output from ldd ldap-agent from FDS 1.0.4 on a FC4 (64 bit) system. I suggest upgrading to FDS 1.0.4.
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:41 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote:> Scott A. Phipps wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 08:45 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote: > > > > > >> hosts_ctl is defined in libwrap.so - do you have tcp_wrappers installed e.g. > >> rpm -qa|grep tcp_wrappers > >> > > > > tcp_wrappers-7.6-39 is installed > > > Hmm - looks like ldap-agent in FDS 1.0.2 is just broken - it''s not > linked with libwrap. However, on 1.0.4, it is. Here is the output from > ldd ldap-agent from FDS 1.0.4 on a FC4 (64 bit) system. I suggest > upgrading to FDS 1.0.4. >I may have to try that . . . though the howto on the wiki says it covers only version 1.0.2 and the previous thread on this subject states that they are using 1.0.2 as well. Oh well, I''ll have to play around with it some more when I get back to work. Thanks, Scott