[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20021120: LDM 5.2.2 sucess!

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 20021120: LDM 5.2.2 sucess!
  • Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:25:38 -0700
>From: "Benjamin Cotton" <address@hidden>
>Organization: Purdue
>Keywords: 200210311528.g9VFSLX21227 LDM 5.2.1 5.2.2 gmake

Ben,

>Well, LDM v5.2.2 is up and running on anvil.  I added the exec rtstats
>command to ldmd.conf per Tom's request.  I am having a couple of small
>issues now which may be a BSD thing..
> 
>(anvil.eas.purdue.edu) [/project/ldm/runtime]% ldmadmin stop
>who: -m: No such file or directory
>stopping the LDM server...
>LDM server stopped

The 'who: -m' thing _is_ a FreeBSD thing.  On FreeBSD, it should be
replaced with a 'who am I".  Do this in ~ldm/bin/ldmadmin in the
start_ldm routine (look for 'who -m').

>(anvil.eas.purdue.edu) [/project/ldm/runtime]% ldmadmin start
>starting the LDM server...
>who: -m: No such file or directory
>the LDM server has been started
>(anvil.eas.purdue.edu) [/project/ldm/runtime]% ldmadmin isrunning
>(anvil.eas.purdue.edu) [/project/ldm/runtime]%

Ditto above.

>As you can see, I'm getting that "who ." verbage that I've never seen
>before.  Also the 'ldmadmin isrunning' command doesn't return a 1, even
>though the LDM is clearly up and running (I know this because we're
>getting data).  'ldmadmin isrunning' has never worked on our machine in
>the past that I can recall, and its not a big issue for me, but I
>thought I'd make you aware of it.  Also, the '-r' flag isn't inserting a
>reason into my log like it is supposed to.

We will add this to the list of things to look into for FreeBSD.

>As a final note, Allen (our department computing whiz) thinks that the
>'make install_setuids' step in source installation may be optional.

This is NOT optional.

>Quoting:  "All that does, I think, is install that hupsyslog program.

It changes the owner of hupsyslog and rpc.ldmd to 'root' and sets the
setuid bit.

>I don't think you need it.

You do need it.

>Could you see when it gets run and we'll try
>it without it?  On older versions of syslog, that might've been
>necessary, but I really don't think it is anymore." 

You will have to trust us on this one.  If you don't perform the
'make install_setuids' step as 'root', then you are basically on your own
when problems arise.

Tom

>From address@hidden Thu Nov 21 04:45:28 2002

re: if you don't do the 'make install_setuids' step as root you are on your own
I figured as much.  I doubt you guys would throw in more steps than
necessary.  But I suppose it doesn't hurt to pass the suggestion along.

Ben