Forums

Mike Kurtz
Mike Kurtz
Offline
Resolved
0 votes
Some time last night our mail system stopped responding (ClearOS 6.8, Zarafa 7.1.5). The webapp loads, but any time it attempts to retrieve information from the server it gives an error, "could not load the contents of this folder," and we are no longer receiving push notifications. I tried stopping and restarting the zarafa services, and all stop and restart appropriately. Zarafa's services have not been touched in months and the only modifications to this system were the monthly antispam and antimalware updates last week.

The only error I can find is in the server.log:

Mon Apr 10 12:40:49 2017: Shutting down.
Mon Apr 10 12:40:50 2017: Still waiting for 8 threads to exit
Mon Apr 10 12:40:52 2017: Server shutdown complete.
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Starting zarafa-server version 7,1,5,42059, pid 12017
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Listening for priority pipe connections on /var/run/zarafa-prio
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Listening for pipe connections on /var/run/zarafa
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Listening for TCP connections on port 236
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Connection to database 'zarafa' succeeded
Mon Apr 10 12:44:44 2017: Using commercial license serial '----------------'
Mon Apr 10 12:44:46 2017: Loading searchfolders
Mon Apr 10 12:44:46 2017: Startup succeeded on pid 12022
Mon Apr 10 12:44:46 2017: Not all objects in relation found for object '-------'
Mon Apr 10 12:44:46 2017: Not all objects in relation found for object '-------'
Mon Apr 10 12:45:00 2017: Not all objects in relation found for object '-------'
Mon Apr 10 12:45:00 2017: Not all objects in relation found for object '-------'
Mon Apr 10 12:45:00 2017: Not all objects in relation found for object '-------'
Mon Apr 10 12:45:02 2017: SQL [00000030] Failed: Got error 28 from storage engine, Query Size: 1496, Query: "SELECT 0,properties.tag,properties.type,properties.val_ulong, LEFT(properties.val_string,255),LEFT(properties.val_binary,511),properties.val_double,properties.val_longint,properties.val_hi,properties.val_lo FROM properties WHERE hierarchyid=579753 AND properties.tag IN (23,26,41,48,54,55,55,57,59,63,64,65,66,67,68,81,82,99,100,101,117,118,119,120,3095,3097,3098,3101,3102,3103,3586,3587,3588,3591,3592,3611,4224,4225,4226,4240,4241,4245,4246,12296,16355,26255,32769,32803,32855,33186,33187,33204,33232,33280,34051) UNION SELECT count(*),mvproperties.tag,mvproperties.type,group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_ulong),':', mvproperties.val_ulong ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_string),':', mvproperties.val_string ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_binary),':', mvproperties.val_binary ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_double),':', mvproperties.val_double ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_longint),':', mvproperties.val_longint ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_hi),':', mvproperties.val_hi ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_lo),':', mvproperties.val_lo ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR '') FROM mvproperties WHERE hierarchyid=579753 AND mvproperties.tag IN (4248,34050) GROUP BY hierarchyid, tag"
Mon Apr 10 12:45:03 2017: SQL [00000027] Failed: Got error 28 from storage engine, Query Size: 1496, Query: "SELECT 0,properties.tag,properties.type,properties.val_ulong, LEFT(properties.val_string,255),LEFT(properties.val_binary,511),properties.val_double,properties.val_longint,properties.val_hi,properties.val_lo FROM properties WHERE hierarchyid=579753 AND properties.tag IN (23,26,41,48,54,55,55,57,59,63,64,65,66,67,68,81,82,99,100,101,117,118,119,120,3095,3097,3098,3101,3102,3103,3586,3587,3588,3591,3592,3611,4224,4225,4226,4240,4241,4245,4246,12296,16355,26255,32769,32803,32855,33186,33187,33204,33232,33280,34051) UNION SELECT count(*),mvproperties.tag,mvproperties.type,group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_ulong),':', mvproperties.val_ulong ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_string),':', mvproperties.val_string ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_binary),':', mvproperties.val_binary ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_double),':', mvproperties.val_double ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_longint),':', mvproperties.val_longint ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_hi),':', mvproperties.val_hi ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR ''), group_concat(length(mvproperties.val_lo),':', mvproperties.val_lo ORDER BY mvproperties.orderid SEPARATOR '') FROM mvproperties WHERE hierarchyid=579753 AND mvproperties.tag IN (4248,34050) GROUP BY hierarchyid, tag"


Error 28 is a space error, so I checked the partitions:

Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/main-root
4.8G 4.6G 492K 100% /
tmpfs 855M 0 855M 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda1 477M 136M 316M 31% /boot
/dev/mapper/data-data0
1.4T 53G 1.3T 4% /store/data0
/dev/mapper/main-var 20G 962M 18G 6% /var
/dev/mapper/main-log 7.8G 515M 6.9G 7% /var/log


Which seems like it would be cause for alarm, but it was my understanding was that the sql system lived on data0 and not root, and that 492k would be large enough for an sql query in any case. Am I incorrect in that assumption? Is this a zarafa-specific issue? If it is an issue with the space on root, what is the best way to clear or add space?
Monday, April 10 2017, 06:29 PM
Share this post:

Accepted Answer

Mike Kurtz
Mike Kurtz
Offline
Monday, April 10 2017, 08:46 PM - #Permalink
Resolved
0 votes
Figured it out; there were a bunch of core dumps sitting around from the last time zarafa acted up, and the system slowly strangled itself with the reduced space.

Incidentally, while SQL isn't on root, it does require space on root for transactions.
The reply is currently minimized Show
Responses (0)
  • There are no replies here yet.
Your Reply