Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Segmentation fault while trying to restore Firebird 2.1 database on Linux |
---|---|
Author | Tomasz Tyrakowski |
Post date | 2018-07-04T12:00:14Z |
On 04.07.2018 at 10:26, jonatan.lauritsen@... [firebird-support] wrote:
and v3 shared libraries (libfb*.so) and your v2 gbak is trying to load
v3 shared libs and/or vice versa. Upon installation, FB makes some
symlinks in /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64, depending on your distro) and maybe
your second installation overwrote some files/symlinks made by the first
one, causing Linux dynamic loader to see the wrong set of libraries.
Hard to tell without a closer look, but maybe it will point you in the
right direction.
Checking your RAM, as suggested by Dimitry, definitely won't hurt, so
you'd better do it anyway.
cheers
Tomasz
> I am trying to restore Firebird 2.1 database on Linux but I am receiving error message:Just a wild guess, but maybe there's some kind of conflict between v2
>
>
> Command '/opt/firebird02/bin/gbak –c –v –p 4096 –user SYSDBA –pass masterkey /backup/BIG_DATABASE /backup/BIG_DATABASE.FDB'
> failed with return code 139 and error message -bash: line 56: 11100 Segmentation fault
>
>
> I am sure that this is not a Firebird error and I am not trying to complain about any error, I am just thinking that I am doing something wrong on my machine but what could be wrong? Upon repeated call the line number and segmentation fault number could be different. Previously I could restore database successfully on this machine but then I installed both Firebird 2.1 and Firebird 3.0 on this machine and now the request to Firebird 2.1 is failing.
and v3 shared libraries (libfb*.so) and your v2 gbak is trying to load
v3 shared libs and/or vice versa. Upon installation, FB makes some
symlinks in /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64, depending on your distro) and maybe
your second installation overwrote some files/symlinks made by the first
one, causing Linux dynamic loader to see the wrong set of libraries.
Hard to tell without a closer look, but maybe it will point you in the
right direction.
Checking your RAM, as suggested by Dimitry, definitely won't hurt, so
you'd better do it anyway.
cheers
Tomasz