Hi guys, We just receive a newly signed certificate for our server. The server is using apache 2.0.54 and openssl. The server works fine before the certificate was renewed. The ca is verisign.
The server error_log contains a line that says, it has reach an end of file error and seems like it fail to read a certain portion of memory space. When I revert back to the old certificate, the server became alive again (with the exception of receiving expired certificate notifications). Care to share me some known fix on this problem. Thanks and best regards, Bunny --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Send PLUG mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > > https://lists.hosting.qsr.com.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific > than "Re: Contents of PLUG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: hardware raid and replicating errors (Re: > [plug] ubuntu > 7.04) (andrelst) > 2. Re: hardware raid and replicating errors (Re: > [plug] ubuntu > 7.04) (Rogelio Serrano) > 3. Re: Microsoft claims that FOSS violates 235 of > its patents > (Dax Solomon Umaming) > 4. Re: Microsoft claims that FOSS violates 235 of > its patents > (Rogelio Serrano) > 5. Re: Microsoft claims that FOSS violates 235 of > its patents > (Dax Solomon Umaming) > 6. RE: Microsoft claims that FOSS violates 235 of > its patents > (Jerome Gotangco) > 7. Re: Microsoft claims that FOSS violates 235 of > its patents > (Jerome Gotangco) > 8. Identify and block Media Extension list (Junix > Gaspar) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 00:44:48 -0400 > From: andrelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: hardware raid and replicating errors > (Re: [plug] ubuntu > 7.04) > To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical > Discussion List" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; > format=flowed > > On 5/11/07, Gerald Timothy Quimpo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 16:36 +0800, Orlando Andico > wrote: > > > On 5/8/07, Rogelio Serrano > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > i dont use hardware raid because it is much > slower than software raid. > > > > and it willingly replicates filesystem blocks > with errors. since the > > > > boot partition is mostly read only thats fine. > > > > > > Tell that to people like EMC and Veritas. They > seem to have built > > > entire business models around hardware RAID.. > > > > Hi Orly, > > > > Clearly EMC and Veritas are good arguments merely > by their existence and > > business success. > > > > On the other hand, I'm interested in the original > point. *Does* > > hardware RAID replicate filesystem blocks with > errors? The answer > > is probably "it depends", which is fine. All good > answers start with > > "it depends", but depends on what? > > No. Once the HW raid controller detects that it > can't write to say, > on the secondary harddrive on a RAID 1 > configuration, It drops any read/writes > to it and informs you via SNMP, e-mail, etc. > additionally, it mirrors to another > harddrive if you have configured it to have spares. > > Please also note that HW RAID does not even know > anything about the > underlying filesystem or what it's doing. > > > Which RAID types does that affect most? I don't > have enough experience > > or theory with RAID to know things like, if you > have RAID-1, is one > > of the mirrors a primary (for read/write) and the > second is mostly for > > replication (read/write too, but preference goes > to the primary). Or > > does the RAID hardware (for RAID-1, anyway) > actually randomly choose > > which half of the mirror to write to and then > (possibly) replicate > > disk errors on that written half to the other > half? > > How about RAID-5, can data errors due to hardware > errors propagate > > with that? > > > > Or maybe some RAID controllers detect the error, > mark that block bad > > (at the hardware RAID level, no need to badblocks) > and move the data > > to some other block and replicate that? > > That's usually the job of the Harddrive controller, > not the RAID controller > to flag the block as unusable and remap the block in > theory. > > > That might cause its own problems too though, > hiding the bug so that > > drives can slowly degrade and RAID still works and > people who think > > that RAID means they're backed up wake up one day > and find themselves > > in deep shyte. > > No. HW RAID (or SW RAID for that matter) is like yes > or no, 1 or 0. A > harddrive it manages is either working or not, and > nothing in between. > > In my experience with a variety of HW RAID > controllers or Storage Arrays, > "drives can slowly degrade and RAID still works", > has not happened. > > > But don't let that verbosity stand in the way of > explaining. I don't > > know enough about the realities of RAID and > comparative advantages of > > different RAID controllers (which brands stand out > overall, which > > families of controller models to stay away from) > to actually know what > > I'm talking about. I'm hoping there'll be > discussion here that I can > > learn from. > > Bottomline, HW raid is no different with SW raid. > > I'm a fan of HW raid(just hate the md/lvm2 combo SW > RAID) on the boot drives, > but likes SW raid on application mount points > because of the > flexibility it gives me. > > The only thing to watch out for HW raid is the > different manufacturers > where the quality of the firmware widely differs. > Rule of thumb, the > more expensive it is, the better and reliable the HW > raid controller is. > > -- > regards, > Andre | http://www.varon.ca > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:52:40 +0800 > From: "Rogelio Serrano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: hardware raid and replicating errors > (Re: [plug] ubuntu > 7.04) > To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical > Discussion List" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; > format=flowed > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
