On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
allow-hotplug eth0
--
That caused major problems on one Mandrake system I had.
--
A. Talsta
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:31:35PM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> I havn't followed this thread, so maybe someone spotted this already:
>
> You have 'allow-hotplug eth0' and 'iface etho'.
It seems the OP is copying "by hand" so these are just transcript
errors.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Johnson wrote:
> Etch was installed yesterday via netinst. Network appeared
> to configure properly - software installation from mirror
> went without a problem
>
> The problem (sort of) goes like this:
> I can boot the machine, and ping any nodes
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 07:27:26PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:22:50AM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:33, Antti Talsta wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:AD:79:35:E1
> > >
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:37, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:53:18 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Didn't help. I'm going to pick up a new linksys card. Tomorrow
> > or later today, I will try a fresh install off of a connection that I
> > know to be good.
>
> Why
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:07, Hubert Mauchle wrote:
> >> ## ---
> >> auto lo
> >> iface lo inet loopback
> >> allow-hotplug eth0
> >> iface etho inet static
> >>address 192.168.1.3
> >>netmask 255.255.255.0
> >>network 192.168.
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:53:18 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
[...]
> Didn't help. I'm going to pick up a new linksys card. Tomorrow
> or later today, I will try a fresh install off of a connection that I know
> to be good.
Why not give it a try before reinstalling? Just exchange the cards and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 00:09, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
>> I really have no idea what could be going on; Are you losing the lease
>> on your IP (That is if it is dynamically assigned through DHCP). Try
>> using a static IP an
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 18:47, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:52:16 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> Or maybe there were many errors, too, and that is why it took three
> hours...
>
> Before you yank out the ethernet card you can try to boot with the
> option(s) "acpi=off" and/or "n
>> ## ---
>> auto lo
>> iface lo inet loopback
>> allow-hotplug eth0
>> iface etho inet static
>> address 192.168.1.3
>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>> network 192.168.1.0## auto-generated
>> broadcast 192.168.1.255 ##
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 18:27, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > Faulty netcard or cable ?
>
> ... could easily be the result of a faulty (or insufficiently
> shielded) cable... Or a faulty switch/hub. Or alternatively: a faulty
> card (but then I'd only expect to see the error count increasing on
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:52:16 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:28, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[...]
> > You seem to have many errors, especially for RX packets. This might
> > indicate a general problem with the driver or a flaky ethernet cable.
>
>Maybe I should try a
On 05/15/2007 03:49 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 03:28, Mumia W.. wrote:
I suggest that you dedicate a runlevel, say 3, to debugging this
problem. For RL (runlevel) 3, disable as many services as
possible--making it almost the same as RL 1; then re-enable only those
services t
On 05/14/2007 10:18 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
On Monday 14 May 2007 20:46, Michael Pobega wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:49:41PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
On Monday 14 May 2007 20:00, Michael Pobega wrote:
Nothing there looks out of the ordinary. The only ones having to do
with the internet ar
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:33, Antti Talsta wrote:
RX packets:28 errors:248 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
--
1)What do you see that is amiss?
Way too many errors compared to received packets.
2)If the car
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:28, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> "address" does not match "HWaddr" in the ifconfig output and NAME should
> be assigned as "eth0". I am afraid that these are just transcription
> errors again, though.
You are correct, those are transcription errors.
> You seem to have man
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 07:27:26PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:22:50AM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:33, Antti Talsta wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:AD:79:35:E1
> > >
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:22:50AM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:33, Antti Talsta wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:AD:79:35:E1
> > > inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
>
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 17:33, Antti Talsta wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:AD:79:35:E1
> > inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> > inet6 addr: fe80::280:adff:fe79:35e1/64 Scope:Link
> >
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:15:22 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 16:13, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 07:32:11 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > I would also like to see the output of:
> >
> > /sbin/ifconfig
> ## -
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Tim Johnson wrote:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:AD:79:35:E1
inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::280:adff:fe79:35e1/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX pack
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 16:13, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 07:32:11 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 07:20, Florian Kulzer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I had a look at the dmesg output which you linked in your original
> > > message. I saw that you also have refer
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 07:32:11 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 07:20, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[...]
> > I had a look at the dmesg output which you linked in your original
> > message. I saw that you also have references to "tulip0" in there. How
> > many network interface cards
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 03:28, Mumia W.. wrote:
> I suggest that you dedicate a runlevel, say 3, to debugging this
> problem. For RL (runlevel) 3, disable as many services as
> possible--making it almost the same as RL 1; then re-enable only those
> services that get you basic network connectivity
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 07:20, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > iface etho inet static
>
>^
> I am not sure if this is the root of the problem but it cannot hurt to
> correct it.
Hi Florian:
I typed 'etho' instead of 'eth0', but it *is* 'eth0' in the script.
> > address 192.168
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:09:44AM +, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Hi Daniel:
> I ran `apt-get remove network-manager' and rebooted, but the problem
> persists. Any other ideas?
> thanks
> tim
No more ideas about specific things that could be wrong.
I wo
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 17:07:35 +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 00:09, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> > I really have no idea what could be going on; Are you losing the lease
> > on your IP (That is if it is dynamically assigned through DHCP). Try
> > using a static IP and see if t
Hello Mumia:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 03:28, Mumia W.. wrote:
> I suggest that you dedicate a runlevel, say 3, to debugging this
> problem. For RL (runlevel) 3, disable as many services as
> possible--making it almost the same as RL 1; then re-enable only those
> services that get you basic network c
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:28:38PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 05/14/2007 12:45 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > I'm going to try to attach a dump of ps -aux as ps.txt
> > I don't know if the list will allow the attachment, but we'll see.
> > It will be easier to read than if pasted into kmail, I think
On 05/14/2007 12:45 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
I'm going to try to attach a dump of ps -aux as ps.txt
I don't know if the list will allow the attachment, but we'll see.
It will be easier to read than if pasted into kmail, I think.
trying attachment.
tim
I suggest that you dedicate a runle
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 01:18, Michael Pobega wrote:
> Nope, sysv-rc-conf is only a graphical program for showing what is on
> and off. You could of course ls /etc/rc(0-6 and S).d/ to show what is
> running on each runlevel.
I'm going to try to attach a dump of ps -aux as ps.txt
I don't know if t
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:31:32PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 01:04, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> >
> > Everything there looks fine, actually. I have no idea what the problem
> > could be. I'm sorry we couldn't resolve it, but I'm fully out of ideas.
> >
> I'm sorry too. Hop
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 01:04, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> Everything there looks fine, actually. I have no idea what the problem
> could be. I'm sorry we couldn't resolve it, but I'm fully out of ideas.
>
I'm sorry too. Hopefully someone else will step in here, 'cuz this
install is unusable until
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:07:35PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 00:09, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> > I really have no idea what could be going on; Are you losing the lease
> > on your IP (That is if it is dynamically assigned through DHCP). Try
> > using a static IP and see if
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 00:09, Michael Pobega wrote:
> I really have no idea what could be going on; Are you losing the lease
> on your IP (That is if it is dynamically assigned through DHCP). Try
> using a static IP and see if that works.
Hi Michael:
I am using a static IP address: Below is a c
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:09:16PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 23:18, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > Well if you have an iptables ruleset already set up on the system it may
> > do you well to post the output of iptables -L here.
>
> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot o
On Monday 14 May 2007 23:18, Michael Pobega wrote:
> Well if you have an iptables ruleset already set up on the system it may
> do you well to post the output of iptables -L here.
## I didn't do anything to set up iptables, here is the output from the dump:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:18:50PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 20:46, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:49:41PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > > On Monday 14 May 2007 20:00, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > > > Nothing there looks out of the ordinary. The only ones
On Monday 14 May 2007 20:46, Michael Pobega wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:49:41PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > On Monday 14 May 2007 20:00, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > > Nothing there looks out of the ordinary. The only ones having to do
> > > with the internet are apache2, bittorrent, and cup
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:49:41PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 20:00, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> > Nothing there looks out of the ordinary. The only ones having to do with
> > the internet are apache2, bittorrent, and cupsys. Try disabling those
> > and see what happens next
On Monday 14 May 2007 20:00, Michael Pobega wrote:
> Nothing there looks out of the ordinary. The only ones having to do with
> the internet are apache2, bittorrent, and cupsys. Try disabling those
> and see what happens next time you boot up. Also post the output of this
> command for me:
That
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:14:33PM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 19:50, Celejar wrote:
>
> > I'm not either, but apache and bittorrent are both network services,
> > and bittorrent can oversaturate a network. It can't hurt to turn
> > them off and see what happens.
>
> What wo
On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:14:33 +
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 19:50, Celejar wrote:
>
> > I'm not either, but apache and bittorrent are both network services,
> > and bittorrent can oversaturate a network. It can't hurt to turn them
> > off and see what happen
On Monday 14 May 2007 19:50, Celejar wrote:
> I'm not either, but apache and bittorrent are both network services,
> and bittorrent can oversaturate a network. It can't hurt to turn them
> off and see what happens.
What would be the 'debian' way to turn them off?
NOTE: I will need apache full
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:41:32AM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> Hello Michael:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 18:41, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > apt-get install sysv-rc-conf, and check what web related services are
> > started at bootup. It could possibly be a daemon that is intrfering with
> > your internet
On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:41:32 +
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Michael:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 18:41, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > apt-get install sysv-rc-conf, and check what web related services are
> > started at bootup. It could possibly be a daemon that is intrfering with
> >
Hello Michael:
On Monday 14 May 2007 18:41, Michael Pobega wrote:
> apt-get install sysv-rc-conf, and check what web related services are
> started at bootup. It could possibly be a daemon that is intrfering with
> your internet connection.
>
> --
Done. If I read sysv-rc-conf correctly, the follow
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:09:44AM +, Tim Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 04:52, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 04:55:24PM +, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > > Etch was installed yesterday via netinst. Network appeared
> > > to configure pr
On Monday 14 May 2007 04:52, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 04:55:24PM +, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> > Etch was installed yesterday via netinst. Network appeared
> > to configure properly - software installation from mirror
> > went without a problem
>
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 04:55:24PM +, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Etch was installed yesterday via netinst. Network appeared
> to configure properly - software installation from mirror
> went without a problem
>
> The problem (sort of) goes like this:
> I can boot the
Etch was installed yesterday via netinst. Network appeared
to configure properly - software installation from mirror
went without a problem
The problem (sort of) goes like this:
I can boot the machine, and ping any nodes on my network.
I can ftp to another machine. Before long, I loose my network
51 matches
Mail list logo
