salt-minion crashes

[Jeff]

Has anybody experienced salt-minions crashing? We have it deployed and they seem to be randomly crashing. I get this message from the output "Device or resource busy (mutex.hpp:91)". We only have a couple state files created. When we run state.highstate initially, everything works. We have monitors on and we see minions crashing at random times and from random machines.

Jeff

[Thomas S Hatch]

That is a ZeroMQ message, what version of ZeroMQ are you running?

[Thomas S Hatch]

Also, what version of Salt are you running, the thing that can cause this in Salt was removed in 0.10.5

[Jeff]

Hi Thomas,

Our minions are running zmq 2.1.9. The salt-minion version is 0.10.4. We experienced this same problem in 0.10.3. I just need to update the salt version? Do I need to update zmq as well? Thanks for your help.

[Thomas S Hatch]

Yes, this is related to a bug in zmq 2.1.9 being exacerbated by a system that was removed in 0.10.5. I would suggest upgrading salt and zeromq, but salt alone should do the trick

[Sean Channel]

We still ship 2.1.9 for lucid and I just updated pyzmq to 2.2.0 there,
so how about if I also update the zeromq support package to 2.2.0 for lucid?

There's a lot of deployment out there on lucid.
_S

[Jeff]

Thanks Thomas!

[Thomas S Hatch]

Sure thing Jeff!

Sean, I think that zeromq 2.2.0 on lucid would be fantastic, if it is not too much trouble of course

[Sean Channel]

On 11/16/2012 06:30 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> Sure thing Jeff!
> Sean, I think that zeromq 2.2.0 on lucid would be fantastic, if it is not
> too much trouble of course

Sure thing. That's up now. This will cause lucid users to see an
upgrade to both pyzmq and libzmq.

[Thomas S Hatch]

You rock Sean!

[Dan Sully]

Thomas - do you have a pointer to the Github commit that removed the problem code in 0.10.5 ?

FYI, I've seen this running libzmq v3.2.2 and salt 0.10.3 right now.

Thanks

[Thomas S Hatch]

I don't know Dan, I would say to upgrade, 0.10.3 is not receiving any backfixes and this would be very deep to find, a lot more has changed here since 0.10.3

Thomas S. Hatch  |  Founder, CTO

5272 South College Drive, Suite 301 | Murray, UT 84123

tha...@saltstack.com | www.saltstack.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Dan Sully]

Ok.. do you have a timeline for when the dev branch (0.10.5?) will be released?

Thanks

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:38:31 PM UTC-8, Thomas Hatch wrote:

I don't know Dan, I would say to upgrade, 0.10.3 is not receiving any backfixes and this would be very deep to find, a lot more has changed here since 0.10.3

[Sean Channel]

Dan- Salt is at 0.13.1 right now and headed for 0.14.0 soon. Older
versions of salt are no longer available. The differences in these and
past releases are not suitable for legacy support.

Please upgrade as soon as possible and we can help you here on the list
and on #salt in IRC.

Sincerely,
_S.

On 02/26/2013 09:24 PM, Dan Sully wrote:
> Ok.. do you have a timeline for when the dev branch (0.10.5?) will be
> released?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:38:31 PM UTC-8, Thomas Hatch wrote:
>>
>> I don't know Dan, I would say to upgrade, 0.10.3 is not receiving any
>> backfixes and this would be very deep to find, a lot more has changed here
>> since 0.10.3
>>
>>

>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Dan Sully <dsu...@gmail.com <javascript:>

>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas - do you have a pointer to the Github commit that removed the
>>> problem code in 0.10.5 ?
>>>
>>> FYI, I've seen this running libzmq v3.2.2 and salt 0.10.3 right now.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:24:00 AM UTC-8, Thomas Hatch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You rock Sean!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Sean Channel <penta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 06:30 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>>>>>> Sure thing Jeff!
>>>>>> Sean, I think that zeromq 2.2.0 on lucid would be fantastic, if it is
>>>>> not
>>>>>> too much trouble of course
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure thing. That's up now. This will cause lucid users to see an
>>>>> upgrade to both pyzmq and libzmq.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Salt-users" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to salt-users+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.