I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server.> [Thu Jul 29 18:03:00 2010] [error] [client 136.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: preamble > [ pid=28460 file=ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp:735 time=2010-07-29 18:03:00.77 ]: > The backend application (process 30417) didn''t send a valid HTTP response. It might have crashed during the middle of sending an HTTP response, so please check whether there are crashing problems in your application. This is the data that it sent: [Content-Type] > *** Exception NoMethodError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner (undefined method `each'' for 3238:Fixnum) (process 30417): > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:100:in `process_request'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:278:in `each'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:277:in `each'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:96:in `process_request'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_request_handler.rb:207:in `main_loop'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:120:in `run'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:65:in `spawn_application'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/utils.rb:252:in `safe_fork'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:58:in `spawn_application'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:41:in `spawn_application'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:150:in `spawn_application'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:278:in `handle_spawn_application'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously'' > from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/bin/passenger-spawn-server:61-- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Russell Jackson
2010-Aug-02 17:25 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 08/02/2010 10:26 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:> Can you paste gem list?# gem list *** LOCAL GEMS *** actionmailer (2.3.8) actionpack (2.3.8) activerecord (2.3.8) activeresource (2.3.8) activesupport (2.3.8) fastthread (1.0.7) passenger (2.2.15) rack (1.1.0) rails (2.3.8) rake (0.8.7) ruby-augeas (0.3.0) sources (0.0.2)> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > >> I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin >> to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration >> works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server. >>-- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Christopher Johnston
2010-Aug-02 17:26 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
Can you paste gem list? On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:> I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin > to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration > works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server. > > > [Thu Jul 29 18:03:00 2010] [error] [client 136.168.1.4] Premature end of > script headers: preamble > > [ pid=28460 file=ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp:735 time=2010-07-29 18:03:00.77 ]: > > The backend application (process 30417) didn''t send a valid HTTP > response. It might have crashed during the middle of sending an HTTP > response, so please check whether there are crashing problems in your > application. This is the data that it sent: [Content-Type] > > *** Exception NoMethodError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner > (undefined method `each'' for 3238:Fixnum) (process 30417): > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:100:in > `process_request'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:278:in `each'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:277:in `each'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:96:in > `process_request'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_request_handler.rb:207:in > `main_loop'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:120:in > `run'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:65:in > `spawn_application'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/utils.rb:252:in > `safe_fork'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:58:in > `spawn_application'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:41:in > `spawn_application'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:150:in > `spawn_application'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:278:in > `handle_spawn_application'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in > `__send__'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in > `main_loop'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in > `start_synchronously'' > > from > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/bin/passenger-spawn-server:61 > > > -- > Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> > Network Analyst > California State University, Bakersfield > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Russell Jackson
2010-Aug-02 17:32 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >Yep. Got the modified one for the puppetmaster -> server class rename. -- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Christopher Johnston
2010-Aug-02 17:35 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:> On 08/02/2010 10:26 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > > Can you paste gem list? > > # gem list > > *** LOCAL GEMS *** > > actionmailer (2.3.8) > actionpack (2.3.8) > activerecord (2.3.8) > activeresource (2.3.8) > activesupport (2.3.8) > fastthread (1.0.7) > passenger (2.2.15) > rack (1.1.0) > rails (2.3.8) > rake (0.8.7) > ruby-augeas (0.3.0) > sources (0.0.2) > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > > > >> I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin > >> to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration > >> works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server. > >> > > > -- > Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> > Network Analyst > California State University, Bakersfield >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Russell Jackson
2010-Aug-02 17:38 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. -- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Russell Jackson
2010-Aug-02 18:21 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 08/02/2010 11:24 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:> I have not played with 2.6.0 yet, but I do have it working fine with .25 > just fine. >Same here. Worked in 0.25.5. Stopped working 2.6.0. -- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Christopher Johnston
2010-Aug-02 18:24 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
I have not played with 2.6.0 yet, but I do have it working fine with .25 just fine. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > > Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? > > > > Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. > > -- > Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> > Network Analyst > California State University, Bakersfield >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Gary Larizza
2010-Aug-02 18:30 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
I''d question Passenger''s 2.2.15 version - I believe 2.2.11 is the last version I''ve seen work well with Puppet. It''s worth a shot to install 2.2.11 and try again. I''ve got it running on OS X Server 10.6.4 with the following Gems: *** LOCAL GEMS *** actionmailer (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.3.6) actionpack (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.13.6) actionwebservice (1.2.6) activerecord (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.15.6) activeresource (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2) activesupport (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.4.4) acts_as_ferret (0.4.7, 0.4.4, 0.4.3) capistrano (2.5.19, 2.5.2) cgi_multipart_eof_fix (2.5.0) daemons (1.1.0, 1.0.10) dnssd (1.3.1, 0.6.0) fastthread (1.0.7, 1.0.1) fcgi (0.8.8, 0.8.7) ferret (0.11.6) gem_plugin (0.2.3) highline (1.5.2, 1.5.0) hpricot (0.8.2, 0.6.164) libxml-ruby (1.1.4, 1.1.2) mongrel (1.1.5) mysql (2.8.1) needle (1.3.0) net-scp (1.0.2, 1.0.1) net-sftp (2.0.4, 2.0.1, 1.1.1) net-ssh (2.0.23, 2.0.4, 1.1.4) net-ssh-gateway (1.0.1, 1.0.0) passenger (2.2.11, 2.2.9) rack (1.1.0, 1.0.1) rails (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.2.6) rake (0.8.7, 0.8.3) RedCloth (4.2.3, 4.1.1) ruby-openid (2.1.7, 2.1.2) ruby-yadis (0.3.4) rubygems-update (1.3.7) rubynode (0.1.5) sqlite3-ruby (1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.4) termios (0.9.4) xmpp4r (0.5, 0.4) On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Christopher Johnston <chjohnst@gmail.com>wrote:> I have not played with 2.6.0 yet, but I do have it working fine with .25 > just fine. > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: >> > Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >> > >> >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. >> >> -- >> Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> >> Network Analyst >> California State University, Bakersfield >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. >-- Gary Larizza Director of Technology Huron City Schools http://www.huronhs.com 悟 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Gary Larizza
2010-Aug-02 18:31 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
Wait - scratch that, this server''s back to .25.5 (reverted it to test out a couple of things). I''ll try getting 2.6 up and running with Passenger and post if it''s successful. I''d still look at 2.2.11. -Gary On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Gary Larizza <ccshots@gmail.com> wrote:> I''d question Passenger''s 2.2.15 version - I believe 2.2.11 is the last > version I''ve seen work well with Puppet. It''s worth a shot to install > 2.2.11 and try again. > > I''ve got it running on OS X Server 10.6.4 with the following Gems: > > *** LOCAL GEMS *** > > actionmailer (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.3.6) > actionpack (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.13.6) > actionwebservice (1.2.6) > activerecord (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.15.6) > activeresource (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2) > activesupport (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.4.4) > acts_as_ferret (0.4.7, 0.4.4, 0.4.3) > capistrano (2.5.19, 2.5.2) > cgi_multipart_eof_fix (2.5.0) > daemons (1.1.0, 1.0.10) > dnssd (1.3.1, 0.6.0) > fastthread (1.0.7, 1.0.1) > fcgi (0.8.8, 0.8.7) > ferret (0.11.6) > gem_plugin (0.2.3) > highline (1.5.2, 1.5.0) > hpricot (0.8.2, 0.6.164) > libxml-ruby (1.1.4, 1.1.2) > mongrel (1.1.5) > mysql (2.8.1) > needle (1.3.0) > net-scp (1.0.2, 1.0.1) > net-sftp (2.0.4, 2.0.1, 1.1.1) > net-ssh (2.0.23, 2.0.4, 1.1.4) > net-ssh-gateway (1.0.1, 1.0.0) > passenger (2.2.11, 2.2.9) > rack (1.1.0, 1.0.1) > rails (2.3.8, 2.3.5, 2.2.2, 1.2.6) > rake (0.8.7, 0.8.3) > RedCloth (4.2.3, 4.1.1) > ruby-openid (2.1.7, 2.1.2) > ruby-yadis (0.3.4) > rubygems-update (1.3.7) > rubynode (0.1.5) > sqlite3-ruby (1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.4) > termios (0.9.4) > xmpp4r (0.5, 0.4) > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Christopher Johnston <chjohnst@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I have not played with 2.6.0 yet, but I do have it working fine with .25 >> just fine. >> >> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: >> >>> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: >>> > Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >>> > >>> >>> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation >>> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a >>> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. >>> >>> -- >>> Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> >>> Network Analyst >>> California State University, Bakersfield >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Users" group. >> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Gary Larizza > > Director of Technology > Huron City Schools > http://www.huronhs.com > > 悟 >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Thorsten Biel
2010-Aug-02 18:46 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
Hi, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > > Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? > > > > Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet.I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs before that worked, too). This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all traces of the old rack version. With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with manifests using the file type with more than one source. HTH, -Thorsten -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
James Turnbull
2010-Aug-02 18:48 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
Russell Jackson wrote:> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: >> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >> > > Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. >I have a working 2.6.0 passenger config albeit with passenger .11 not .15 - Jeff McCune I believe tested Puppet with the latest Passenger and discovered it did not work. Regards James -- Puppet Labs - http://www.puppetlabs.com C: 503-734-8571 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Russell Jackson
2010-Aug-02 18:50 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote:> Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: >>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >>> >> >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. > > > I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs before > that worked, too). > This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. > Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all > traces of the old rack version. > With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with > manifests using the file type with more than one source. >Confirmed. It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get the error. -- Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Gary Larizza
2010-Aug-02 18:57 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
If this is true, can someone file a bug report against it? Passenger''s great, but it seems like we''re getting to need very specific versions of rack/passenger for certain features. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:> On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > > > >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > >>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? > >>> > >> > >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. > > > > > > I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs > before > > that worked, too). > > This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. > > Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all > > traces of the old rack version. > > With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with > > manifests using the file type with more than one source. > > > > Confirmed. > > It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a > manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get the error. > > -- > Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> > Network Analyst > California State University, Bakersfield > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- Gary Larizza Director of Technology Huron City Schools http://www.huronhs.com 悟 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Gary Larizza
2010-Aug-02 19:00 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On second thought (hitting send always triggers those), I''m not sure if this is a puppet bug so much as it''s Passenger''s problem handling Puppet Manifests. Maybe we can get something on the wiki about these specific rack/passenger combinations and the problems they solve? On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Gary Larizza <ccshots@gmail.com> wrote:> If this is true, can someone file a bug report against it? Passenger''s > great, but it seems like we''re getting to need very specific versions of > rack/passenger for certain features. > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > >> On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: >> >>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation >> >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a >> >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. >> > >> > >> > I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs >> before >> > that worked, too). >> > This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. >> > Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all >> > traces of the old rack version. >> > With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with >> > manifests using the file type with more than one source. >> > >> >> Confirmed. >> >> It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a >> manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get the error. >> >> -- >> Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu> >> Network Analyst >> California State University, Bakersfield >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Users" group. >> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > Gary Larizza > > Director of Technology > Huron City Schools > http://www.huronhs.com > > 悟 >-- Gary Larizza Director of Technology Huron City Schools http://www.huronhs.com 悟 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Brice Figureau
2010-Aug-04 17:09 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
On 02/08/10 19:17, Russell Jackson wrote:> I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin > to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration > works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server. > >> [Thu Jul 29 18:03:00 2010] [error] [client 136.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: preamble >> [ pid=28460 file=ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp:735 time=2010-07-29 18:03:00.77 ]: >> The backend application (process 30417) didn''t send a valid HTTP response. It might have crashed during the middle of sending an HTTP response, so please check whether there are crashing problems in your application. This is the data that it sent: [Content-Type] >> *** Exception NoMethodError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner (undefined method `each'' for 3238:Fixnum) (process 30417): >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:100:in `process_request'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:278:in `each'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.1.0/lib/rack/utils.rb:277:in `each'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:96:in `process_request'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_request_handler.rb:207:in `main_loop'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:120:in `run'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:65:in `spawn_application'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/utils.rb:252:in `safe_fork'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:58:in `spawn_application'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/application_spawner.rb:41:in `spawn_application'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:150:in `spawn_application'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:278:in `handle_spawn_application'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously'' >> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.15/bin/passenger-spawn-server:61Can anyone experiencing the same issue try the following patch: http://github.com/masterzen/puppet/commit/4d48437d0102d46cedd865973b97db49bcc862d2 and let us know if that solves or not the issue? -- Brice Figureau My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Looks like it is working for me. puppet 2.6.1rc1 ruby 1.8.7-299 passenger 2.2.15 rack 1.2.1 Thanks! On Aug 4, 10:09 am, Brice Figureau <brice-pup...@daysofwonder.com> wrote:> On 02/08/10 19:17, Russell Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > I''m having a hell of a time with mod_passenger. Where would I even begin > > to investigate where this exception is coming from? My configuration > > works fine with the 2.6.0 webrick server. > > > Can anyone experiencing the same issue try the following patch:http://github.com/masterzen/puppet/commit/4d48437d0102d46cedd865973b9... > > and let us know if that solves or not the issue? > -- > Brice Figureau > My Blog:http://www.masterzen.fr/-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Nicolas Brisac
2010-Aug-05 09:31 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] puppet 2.6.0 vs apache/mod_passenger
I''ve just had a similar issue, although no crash this time.
The recent patches provided by Brice have fixed my issues with file serving in
2.6.0 as long as there''s only one source/content.
However, If multiple "contents" are defined it will:
- Evaluate all templates: The logs on the master show "Interpolated
template <template path> in 0.00 seconds" and "Bound template
variables for <template path> in 0.00 seconds" for each template.
Shouldn''t it happen only for the first one it finds?
- Set the content of the local file to the last template evaluated.
If the local file is identical to the first template in the array (once filled
in), no file is transferred, as expected, proof that the diff actually happens I
guess .
Also, I couldn''t see any error/warning in the logs.
I can easily replicate:
file { "/tmp/bla": content => [
template("module/blabla.erb"), template("module/hehe.erb") ]
}
with blabla.erb --> "bla bla"
and hehe.erb --> "he he"
if /tmp/bla has "bla bla" all is fine, but if it has only
"bla" then its content gets replaced by "he he".
With "sources" though, the first one in the array is being used.
Any reason for that?
Nico
On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote: > Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:
>>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru?
>>>
>>
>> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation
>> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a
>> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet.
>
>
> I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs
before
> that worked, too).
> This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem.
> Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all
> traces of the old rack version.
> With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with
> manifests using the file type with more than one source.
>
Confirmed.
It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a
manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get
the error.
--
Russell A Jackson <raj@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Ok - What am I missing... I applied the patch referenced above to the 2.6.1rc1 and did an install over 2.6.0 (which was not working) Server - RH5 64Bit puppet 2.6.1rc1 ruby 1.8.5 passenger 2.2.15 rack 1.2.1 [Fri Aug 06 22:03:22 2010] [notice] Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) configured -- resuming normal operations *** Exception TypeError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner (can''t conve rt Array into String) (process 7593): from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/utils.rb:138:in `unio n'' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/utils.rb:138 from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_ori ginal_require'' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require '' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/request.rb:1 from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_ori ginal_require'' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require '' On Aug 5, 2:31 am, Nicolas Brisac <n...@sol1.com.au> wrote:> I''ve just had a similar issue, although no crash this time. > > The recent patches provided by Brice have fixed my issues with file serving in 2.6.0 as long as there''s only one source/content. > However, If multiple "contents" are defined it will: > > - Evaluate all templates: The logs on the master show "Interpolated template <template path> in 0.00 seconds" and "Bound template variables for <template path> in 0.00 seconds" for each template. Shouldn''t it happen only for the first one it finds? > > - Set the content of the local file to the last template evaluated. > > If the local file is identical to the first template in the array (once filled in), no file is transferred, as expected, proof that the diff actually happens I guess . > > Also, I couldn''t see any error/warning in the logs. > > I can easily replicate: > > file { "/tmp/bla": content => [ template("module/blabla.erb"), template("module/hehe.erb") ] } > > with blabla.erb --> "bla bla" > and hehe.erb --> "he he" > > if /tmp/bla has "bla bla" all is fine, but if it has only "bla" then its content gets replaced by "he he". > > With "sources" though, the first one in the array is being used. > > Any reason for that? > > Nico > > On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <r...@csub.edu> wrote: > > >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > >>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? > > >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. > > > I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs before > > that worked, too). > > This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. > > Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all > > traces of the old rack version. > > With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with > > manifests using the file type with more than one source. > > Confirmed. > > It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a > manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get the error. > > -- > Russell A Jackson <r...@csub.edu> > Network Analyst > California State University, Bakersfield > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Found a posting that said go back to rack 1.1.0 which I did - now this is the error from Apache 2.2.3: [Sun Aug 08 13:17:33 2010] [error] [client 172.31.255.194] (104)Connection reset b y peer: ap_content_length_filter: apr_bucket_read() failed On Aug 6, 10:25 pm, Rustler <coltsixshoo...@gmail.com> wrote:> Ok - What am I missing... I applied the patch referenced above to the > 2.6.1rc1 and did an install over 2.6.0 (which was not working) > > Server - RH5 64Bit > > puppet 2.6.1rc1 > ruby 1.8.5 > passenger 2.2.15 > rack 1.2.1 > > [Fri Aug 06 22:03:22 2010] [notice] Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) configured > -- resuming > normal operations > *** Exception TypeError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner > (can''t conve > rt Array into String) (process 7593): > from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/utils.rb:138:in > `unio > n'' > from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/utils.rb:138 > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `gem_ori > ginal_require'' > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `require > '' > from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rack-1.2.1/lib/rack/request.rb:1 > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `gem_ori > ginal_require'' > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `require > '' > > On Aug 5, 2:31 am, Nicolas Brisac <n...@sol1.com.au> wrote: > > > I''ve just had a similar issue, although no crash this time. > > > The recent patches provided by Brice have fixed my issues with file serving in 2.6.0 as long as there''s only one source/content. > > However, If multiple "contents" are defined it will: > > > - Evaluate all templates: The logs on the master show "Interpolated template <template path> in 0.00 seconds" and "Bound template variables for <template path> in 0.00 seconds" for each template. Shouldn''t it happen only for the first one it finds? > > > - Set the content of the local file to the last template evaluated. > > > If the local file is identical to the first template in the array (once filled in), no file is transferred, as expected, proof that the diff actually happens I guess . > > > Also, I couldn''t see any error/warning in the logs. > > > I can easily replicate: > > > file { "/tmp/bla": content => [ template("module/blabla.erb"), template("module/hehe.erb") ] } > > > with blabla.erb --> "bla bla" > > and hehe.erb --> "he he" > > > if /tmp/bla has "bla bla" all is fine, but if it has only "bla" then its content gets replaced by "he he". > > > With "sources" though, the first one in the array is being used. > > > Any reason for that? > > > Nico > > > On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <r...@csub.edu> wrote: > > > >> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote: > > >>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru? > > > >> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation > > >> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a > > >> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet. > > > > I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs before > > > that worked, too). > > > This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem. > > > Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all > > > traces of the old rack version. > > > With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with > > > manifests using the file type with more than one source. > > > Confirmed. > > > It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a > > manifest. Tested against a node that didn''t, and I didn''t get the error. > > > -- > > Russell A Jackson <r...@csub.edu> > > Network Analyst > > California State University, Bakersfield > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.