On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:16:10 -0700
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Postfix was only the messenger of bad news. It does not
> > spontaneously self-destruct.
>
> I have always found Postfix to be extremely reliable and robust.
> Which was why this happening on two different systems
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Could a watchdog timer have killed master(8) if it were suspended
> long enough?
Seems plausible. I could see something in the code timing out since
things would be blocked waiting for I/O for so long.a
> Demi Marie Obenour:
> > My intuition is that either some timeout s
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix was only the messenger of bad news. It does not
> spontaneously self-destruct.
I have always found Postfix to be extremely reliable and robust.
Which was why this happening on two different systems was such an oddity.
Bob
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> it's still possible that:
> - postfix was killed by e.g. OOM killer, in which case it could not log that.
I disable the OOM with vm.overcommit_memory = 2 so that particular
thing won't be it.
> - the logs were lost because of systemd's log limits
That is possible.
Could a watchdog timer have killed master(8) if it were suspended
long enough?
> On 23 Dec 2021, at 1:57 pm, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> My intuition is that either some timeout somewhere got hit, or that
>> some I/O failed (rather than being queued forever) and caused an error
>> paging in some c
Demi Marie Obenour:
> My intuition is that either some timeout somewhere got hit, or that
> some I/O failed (rather than being queued forever) and caused an error
> paging in some code. That would cause Postfix to die with SIGBUS.
If the file system was unavailable, then yes, failure to page in
Bob Proulx:
> Any ideas on why postfix would not be running after such an event on
> two of the systems but okay on the others?
Wietse Venema wrote:
LOGS. Postfix logs a sh*load, including processes that fail to
start. If the systems were unable to record this in LOGS, then you
will never know
Bob Proulx:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Bob Proulx:
> > > Any ideas on why postfix would not be running after such an event on
> > > two of the systems but okay on the others?
> >
> > LOGS. Postfix logs a sh*load, including processes that fail to
> > start. If the systems were unable to record this
On 12/22/21 8:26 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Everything is good so no stress about anything here but I am poking at
> the log files with a stick after a strange incident. Perhaps this
> tripped over some problem that discussing it might either enlighten me
> or perhaps unlikely improve things. Who kn
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Proulx:
> > Any ideas on why postfix would not be running after such an event on
> > two of the systems but okay on the others?
>
> LOGS. Postfix logs a sh*load, including processes that fail to
> start. If the systems were unable to record this in LOGS, then you
> will
Bob Proulx:
> Any ideas on why postfix would not be running after such an event on
> two of the systems but okay on the others?
LOGS. Postfix logs a sh*load, including processes that fail to
start. If the systems were unable to record this in LOGS, then you
will never know.
Wietse
Everything is good so no stress about anything here but I am poking at
the log files with a stick after a strange incident. Perhaps this
tripped over some problem that discussing it might either enlighten me
or perhaps unlikely improve things. Who knows?
The GNU Savannah software forge had a net
12 matches
Mail list logo
