Johan Andersson:
> The problem was solved with a full server reboot (rebooting the
> zone where Postfix is running did not help).
> Strange....but I'm happy for now.

I found a similar problem with Linux on some third-party website,
where a Postfix daemon has been reported to fail in fstat() with
the same error message.

The probable cause there is that the program was built in 32-bit
mode, causing the inode number for a pipe file handle to become
larger than 4 billion. Recompiling in 32-bit "large file"
mode or in 64-bit mode should fix the problem.

        Wietse

> 
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Fr?n: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org 
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] F?r Johan Andersson
> Skickat: den 20 januari 2012 16:05
> Till: Postfix users
> ?mne: SV: SV: Strange Postfix error
> 
> Hi.
> 
> The binaries used are compiled on a Solaris server and have been in use since 
> September 21st last year without any problems until yesterday when they 
> suddenly stopped working. I replaced them with the exact same binaries that 
> was used when the server was upgraded on September 21st (didn't help).
> They are also in use on two other servers where they are working prefectly 
> (thank god for that) and they were compiled the same way as version 2.6.4 and 
> 2.7.1 that were used before this version ( 2.8.5) and those versions worked 
> without problems.
> 
> Something happpend after a restart when I made changed?s to the parameters in 
> main.cf (No changes whatsoever was made with the binaries used).
> 
> Br
> 
>    Johan
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Fr?n: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org 
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] F?r Wietse Venema
> Skickat: den 20 januari 2012 15:51
> Till: Postfix users
> ?mne: Re: SV: Strange Postfix error
> 
> Johan Andersson:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Thanks for your answer.
> > 
> > I don't think that's the answer....because i haven't replaced anything 
> > really (well, apart from replacing the binaries with a copy of the 
> > ones that were already running).
> 
> My reply was 100% about the consequences of replacing Postfix binaries of 
> build X with Postfix binaries of build Y, where X does not equal Y.
> 
> You now have a master daemon process of build X, executing binaries of build 
> Y.
> 
>       Wietse
> 

Reply via email to