tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
Subject Re: On one particular box, Tomcat 7.0.25 runs just fine, but 7.0.47 crashes on takeoff -- some authority problem
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2013 03:57:40 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

James,

On 12/6/13, 7:59 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> We've been systematically updating our customers from Tomcat 7.0.25
> to 7.0.47 this week, after we've determined that our webapp runs
> just fine on 47, and 47 runs just fine on AS/400s.
> 
> Until now.
> 
> We have one customer box on which, if you launch Tomcat 7.0.25, it
>  works just fine. But if you try to launch 7.0.47 instead, it 
> crashes on takeoff, with this error message (directory name changed
> to protect the innocent):
> 
>> qsh: 001-0018 Error found running command 
>> /foo/tomcat/bin/startup.sh. Permission denied.
> 
> Both of the Tomcat versions are within what I'm calling "foo"; I'm 
> swapping them in and out by changing the tomcat directory of the 
> one I want active to "tomcat," and the other to "tomcat.new" or 
> "tomcat.bak." The authorities look exactly the same, from one to 
> the other, on the two Tomcat directories, on the corresponding 
> objects within the two directories, and on the corresponding 
> objects within their respective bin directories.

All the way up to root? I'm not sure about AS/400, but if a user does
not have execute privileges for all directories from the root down to
where the binary/script is, they can't execute it.

> The only difference is ownership of objects: we have two accounts 
> on this particular box, and 7.0.25 is owned by the account I'm not
>  using today. But if ownership were the problem, then I would
> expect 47 to work and 25 to crash on takeoff.
> 
> For now, I've got that customer back on 7.0.25, but we've already 
> found that 7.0.47 seems to work a good deal better, so I want to 
> figure out what's the matter here.

Can you give us some "proof" that all the permissions are the same,
etc? I've often found that while preparing a message to this very list
with a question about why something doesn't work, the mere assembly of
all that information in one place leads me to the solution and I don't
even have to post.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=w98T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message