Re: [Evolution] Evolution Crashing Groupwise POA

["James Richardson" <jrichardson x-iss com>]

Hi Sankar,

We're currently running Groupwise 7 on OES-SP1. Novell support has asked
us to upgrade to the SP1-Beta we're not decided if we should or not
though. 

Do you have instructions (even at a high level) on how to attach gdb to
the gwpoa process and obtain the stack trace? It's interesting that
novell support hasn't asked me to do that already (and our ticket has
been open for several weeks).

If you want me to do any debugging we will need to move quickly... The issues we have been facing have caused 
great pain for the executives so we have decided to not proceed with our Groupwise implementation in favor of 
Exchange. (There have been several client issues we've been facing in addition to this).

Thanks,

-- 
===================================
James T. Richardson, Jr.
eXcellence in IS Solutions, Inc.
jrichardson x-iss com
-----------------------------------
Office: 713-862-9200 x 226
Fax: 713-586-3224
===================================

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:27 +0000, Sankar P  wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Once you start the gwpoa in your server attach gdb to it. The next time
> when Evolution crashes it, get the stack traces and file a bug on
> http://bugzilla.novell.com for GroupWise. Because, whatever a client
> send should not crash the server at any cost. We have had a few crashes
> fixed in the server previously. You havent mentioned which version of
> server and the operation in Evolution that crashed the poa.
>
> Sankar
>
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 08:01 -0600, James Richardson wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We've just implemented a Groupwise server for our office (of about 15
> > people) and when using Evolution as a SOAP client to the server, the
> > first thing it does in the morning when I connect is crash the Groupwise
> > POA. This is true in both version 2.4.2 and 2.5.90. Once the server is
> > restarted it's fine for the rest of the day, however the next morning
> > when I relaunch Evolutin, it crashes again.
> >
> > Has anyone else seen this behavior?