Jump to content

Emby won't start after upgrade to 4.7.5 on DSM6/DS218j


roaku
 Share

Go to solution Solved by alucryd,

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I guess it's my turn for this one.

I manually updated to 4.7.5.

Now Emby will not start.

I've rebooted and verified that the emby user has read/write access to the Emby directory.

The latest Emby log is from the shutdown before the update.

I can't find anything interesting in /var/log.

Edited by roaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI, can you try running from ssh: 

Then supply the terminal output. Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

HI, can you try running from ssh: 

Then supply the terminal output. Thanks.

 

"Segmentation fault"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did you download the 4.7.5 update?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And are you not able to update to DSM 7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Luke said:

When did you download the 4.7.5 update?

About an hour ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I've passed this onto our Synology packaging developer for review. Thanks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Luke said:

And are you not able to update to DSM 7?

My model technically supports it but is under-powered and DSM7 doesn't offer anything I'm particularly interested in to make it worth the hassle of migrating Emby and other packages.

'Emby is broken on DSM6' is just about the only condition that might make me upgrade...or switch to a standalone linux box for my Emby server.

Edited by roaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

heffeque
1 hour ago, roaku said:

My model technically supports it but is under-powered and DSM7 doesn't offer anything I'm particularly interested in to make it worth the hassle of migrating Emby and other packages.

'Emby is broken on DSM6' is just about the only condition that might make me upgrade...or switch to a standalone linux box for my Emby server.

Actually, DSM 7/7.1 uses less RAM than DSM6. For the sake of snappiness, I recommend DSM7.1 quite a bit.

7.1 is also pretty great at managing SSD cache (not your case, but just wanted to point it out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alucryd

@roaku Can you please run the following via SSH? It's to verify you have the fixed package indeed.

ls -lah /var/packages/EmbyServer/target/lib/

Please let us know if you still have issues if you decide to upgrade to DSM7, I haven't compared memory usage but less can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alucryd said:

@roaku Can you please run the following via SSH? It's to verify you have the fixed package indeed.

ls -lah /var/packages/EmbyServer/target/lib/

Please let us know if you still have issues if you decide to upgrade to DSM7, I haven't compared memory usage but less can only be a good thing.

total 61M
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4.0K Jun 28 15:29 .
drwxr-xr-x 9 root root 4.0K Jul  6 22:49 ..
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavcodec.so -> libavcodec.so.59.21.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavcodec.so.59 -> libavcodec.so.59.21.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  14M Jun 28 15:29 libavcodec.so.59.21.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavdevice.so -> libavdevice.so.59.5.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavdevice.so.59 -> libavdevice.so.59.5.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 370K Jun 28 15:29 libavdevice.so.59.5.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavfilter.so -> libavfilter.so.8.25.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libavfilter.so.8 -> libavfilter.so.8.25.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3.7M Jun 28 15:29 libavfilter.so.8.25.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   24 Jun 28 15:29 libavformat.so -> libavformat.so.59.17.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   24 Jun 28 15:29 libavformat.so.59 -> libavformat.so.59.17.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4.0M Jun 28 15:29 libavformat.so.59.17.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   22 Jun 28 15:29 libavutil.so -> libavutil.so.57.19.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   22 Jun 28 15:29 libavutil.so.57 -> libavutil.so.57.19.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 422K Jun 28 15:29 libavutil.so.57.19.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  78K Jun 28 15:29 libbcm_host.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 164K Jun 28 15:29 libbrcmEGL.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  82K Jun 28 15:29 libbrcmGLESv2.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   17 Jun 28 15:29 libcom_err.so -> libcom_err.so.3.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   17 Jun 28 15:29 libcom_err.so.3 -> libcom_err.so.3.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 9.3K Jun 28 15:29 libcom_err.so.3.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  67K Jun 28 15:29 libcontainers.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libcrypto.so -> libcrypto.so.1.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.5M Jun 28 15:29 libcrypto.so.1.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libcurl.so -> libcurl.so.4.7.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libcurl.so.4 -> libcurl.so.4.7.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 275K Jun 28 15:29 libcurl.so.4.7.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   11 Jun 28 15:29 libdrm.so -> libdrm.so.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   15 Jun 28 15:29 libdrm.so.2 -> libdrm.so.2.4.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  46K Jun 28 15:29 libdrm.so.2.4.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libfontconfig.so -> libfontconfig.so.1.12.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libfontconfig.so.1 -> libfontconfig.so.1.12.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 566K Jun 28 15:29 libfontconfig.so.1.12.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   13 Jun 28 15:29 libgcc_s.so -> libgcc_s.so.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  92K Jun 28 15:29 libgcc_s.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libgssapi_krb5.so -> libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libgssapi_krb5.so.2 -> libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 159K Jun 28 15:29 libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicudata.so -> libicudata.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicudata.so.68 -> libicudata.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  28M Jun 28 15:29 libicudata.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicui18n.so -> libicui18n.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicui18n.so.68 -> libicui18n.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.8M Jun 28 15:29 libicui18n.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicuio.so -> libicuio.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicuio.so.68 -> libicuio.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  30K Jun 28 15:29 libicuio.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicutest.so -> libicutest.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libicutest.so.68 -> libicutest.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  46K Jun 28 15:29 libicutest.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicutu.so -> libicutu.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicutu.so.68 -> libicutu.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 123K Jun 28 15:29 libicutu.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicuuc.so -> libicuuc.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libicuuc.so.68 -> libicuuc.so.68.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.2M Jun 28 15:29 libicuuc.so.68.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libk5crypto.so -> libk5crypto.so.3.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   18 Jun 28 15:29 libk5crypto.so.3 -> libk5crypto.so.3.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 126K Jun 28 15:29 libk5crypto.so.3.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   14 Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5.so -> libkrb5.so.3.3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   14 Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5.so.3 -> libkrb5.so.3.3
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 480K Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5.so.3.3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5support.so -> libkrb5support.so.0.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5support.so.0 -> libkrb5support.so.0.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  26K Jun 28 15:29 libkrb5support.so.0.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  45K Jun 28 15:29 libmmal_components.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  57K Jun 28 15:29 libmmal_core.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 9.7K Jun 28 15:29 libmmal.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  63K Jun 28 15:29 libmmal_util.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  35K Jun 28 15:29 libmmal_vc_client.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  24K Jun 28 15:29 libopenmaxil.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libpostproc.so -> libpostproc.so.56.4.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Jun 28 15:29 libpostproc.so.56 -> libpostproc.so.56.4.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  26K Jun 28 15:29 libpostproc.so.56.4.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   17 Jun 28 15:29 libSkiaSharp.so -> libSkiaSharp.so.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   20 Jun 28 15:29 libSkiaSharp.so.2 -> libSkiaSharp.so.80.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2.4M Jun 28 15:29 libSkiaSharp.so.80.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   19 Jun 28 15:29 libsqlite3.so -> libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   19 Jun 28 15:29 libsqlite3.so.0 -> libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 585K Jun 28 15:29 libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   13 Jun 28 15:29 libssl.so -> libssl.so.1.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 305K Jun 28 15:29 libssl.so.1.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   19 Jun 28 15:29 libstdc++.so -> libstdc++.so.6.0.25
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   19 Jun 28 15:29 libstdc++.so.6 -> libstdc++.so.6.0.25
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 826K Jun 28 15:29 libstdc++.so.6.0.25
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   24 Jun 28 15:29 libswresample.so -> libswresample.so.4.4.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   24 Jun 28 15:29 libswresample.so.4 -> libswresample.so.4.4.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  62K Jun 28 15:29 libswresample.so.4.4.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libswscale.so -> libswscale.so.6.5.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   21 Jun 28 15:29 libswscale.so.6 -> libswscale.so.6.5.100
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 282K Jun 28 15:29 libswscale.so.6.5.100
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libuuid.so -> libuuid.so.1.3.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   16 Jun 28 15:29 libuuid.so.1 -> libuuid.so.1.3.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  18K Jun 28 15:29 libuuid.so.1.3.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  22K Jun 28 15:29 libvchiq_arm.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  39K Jun 28 15:29 libvcos.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  26K Jun 28 15:29 libvcsm.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   14 Jun 28 15:29 libz.so -> libz.so.1.2.11
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   14 Jun 28 15:29 libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.2.11
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  58K Jun 28 15:29 libz.so.1.2.11

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alucryd

@roakuThanks, no trace of glibc so you do have the correct package. What's the last package that worked for you? This one is essentially the same as the previous 4.6 line and early 4.7 packages. Also did you try the latest beta, if your kernel version is above 3.2 could you give it a try?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alucryd said:

@roakuThanks, no trace of glibc so you do have the correct package. What's the last package that worked for you? This one is essentially the same as the previous 4.6 line and early 4.7 packages. Also did you try the latest beta, if your kernel version is above 3.2 could you give it a try?

I was upgrading from 4.7.2, I believe.

I had no issues upgrading from 4.6 to 4.7 about a month after 4.7 was released.

Assuming you mean Linux kernel, that's at 3.10.105.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution
alucryd
1 hour ago, roaku said:

I was upgrading from 4.7.2, I believe.

I had no issues upgrading from 4.6 to 4.7 about a month after 4.7 was released.

Assuming you mean Linux kernel, that's at 3.10.105.

Thanks for your answers.

Can you give the latest beta a try then? With the stable package as it is today, the only thing that can segfault so early is the dotnet runtime itself. We've been steadily losing arm devices over the years to what seems to be that same issue, I'm hoping the newer glibc shipped in the beta can alleviate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, alucryd said:

Thanks for your answers.

Can you give the latest beta a try then? With the stable package as it is today, the only thing that can segfault so early is the dotnet runtime itself. We've been steadily losing arm devices over the years to what seems to be that same issue, I'm hoping the newer glibc shipped in the beta can alleviate that.

Ok. I'll try this evening (+7 hours or so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@alucryd

The 4.8 beta is working for me.

The server started up and everything is working normally (so far).

Thanks.

Edited by roaku
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

alucryd

Great, thanks for the feedback! I'm glad to hear that, we might be able to reclaim devices we had to move to mono due to that issue, provided they have a kernel above 3.2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...