SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

December 2010

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:25:18 +0000
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (24 lines)
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Ken Schumacher wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>
>>
>> Since you state that you have other SLF 4.4 systems that do not have this problem so what is the difference between them?
>
> There are a large number of RPMs that differ between these nodes.  I actually have several nodes that are working just fine.  I have two nodes (jpsi1 and jpsi2) that suffer this same failure.  I am still comparing the RPMs installed to see what these 2 systems have in common that the other nodes may not have.
>
>> Does rpm have similar issues?
>
> No RPM command that I have attempted has failed.

Could the yum binaries have become corrupted ?
  rpm -V `rpm -qa | grep yum`
might help check that.

No other applications are having problems ?
I guess it isn't trivial to check the disk and memory of the machine.

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

ATOM RSS1 RSS2