Bareos Bug Tracker
Bareos Bug Tracker

View Issue Details Jump to Notes ] Issue History ] Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0000928bareos-core[All Projects] file daemonpublic2018-03-09 16:182018-04-05 13:02
Assigned To 
PlatformLinuxOSUbuntuOS Version16.04
Product Version17.2.4 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0000928: using non-default port conflicts with systemd unit (and init script) PIDFile
DescriptionThe FD write its PID file based on the port being used, so if using 19102 the PID file is However the systemd unit expects a PID file named /var/lib/bareos/ The init file uses a variable which is set to 9102 as well.
This leads to systemctl timing out when starting bareos-fd:

# systemctl restart bareos-filedaemon.service
Job for bareos-filedaemon.service failed because a timeout was exceeded. See "systemctl status bareos-filedaemon.service" and "journalctl -xe" for details.

The log complains:

systemd[1]: bareos-filedaemon.service: PID file /var/lib/bareos/ not readable (yet?) after start: No such file or directory

It would be nice to change this behaviour or at least insert a warning into the documentation at the FD port setting.
Steps To Reproduce1. set FD Port to non-default value
2. use systemctl restart bareos-fd.service
or systemctl restart bareos-filedaemon-service
TagsNo tags attached.
bareos-master: impact
bareos-master: action
bareos-18.2: impact
bareos-18.2: action
bareos-17.2: impact
bareos-17.2: action
bareos-16.2: impact
bareos-16.2: action
bareos-15.2: impact
bareos-15.2: action
bareos-14.2: impact
bareos-14.2: action
bareos-13.2: impact
bareos-13.2: action
bareos-12.4: impact
bareos-12.4: action
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
MarceloRuiz (reporter)
2018-03-17 03:29

Same thing happens in Ubuntu with bareos 16.2
joergs (administrator)
2018-04-05 13:02

Well, a general warning about this can easily be added to the documentation, specifically at [^]
Warning: changing the default port only affects the daemon itself. Start- and Stop-Scripts must be adapted manually.

However, does this really helps? Is there a better way to cope with this issue? Bear in mind, that it should still be (manually) possible, to run multiple instances at the same time.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2018-03-09 16:18 vorlon New Issue
2018-03-17 03:29 MarceloRuiz Note Added: 0002947
2018-04-05 13:02 joergs Note Added: 0002961
2018-04-05 13:02 joergs Status new => feedback

Copyright © 2000 - 2018 MantisBT Team
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker