Re: [ARMini-support] Resolver problem
- From: Alan Adams <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: armini-support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:52:47 +0100
In message <ab312b6c55.rcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A Rawnsley <rcomp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The name I get the most problems with is news.orpheusnet.co.uk. The
smtp address has the same problem. I also have problems with
www.nckc.org.uk. In both cases the addresses are fine whe accessed
from Windows or the RPi (which is running RO5.21).
Are you running via DHCP (automatic network addresses) or using fixed IP
addresses.
All addresses on the network are set manually. The primary name server
and gateway addresses are correct. The netmask is correct.
The problem is intermittent.
If it comes back, it *might* be worth trying DHCP (which is how the
computer is supplied). I know I've not been a big fan of it in the past,
but it seems to work really well with ARMX6 and other modern RISC OS kit.
Indeed, I've actually had more problems on static-IP machines (eg.
machines starting too quickly and things not waking up in time) than on
DHCP ones. Not directly related to your issue, mind you, but nevertheless
I'd recommend it (for that machine).
Obviously I still recommend static (or fixed-IP via MAC-address over DHCP)
for server-role machines (eg. Windows machines with UniPrint).
Kind wishes,
Andrew
Andrew
DHCP is not an option - this machine is a server on a network which
has to be able to operate without a router present.
The problem is back. Some more testing shows that the ArmX6 cannot
ping the router, but can ping other systems on the network. Other
systems can ping the router. The router is on 192.168.0.99.
*ping www.bbc.co.uk
ping: unknown host www.bbc.co.uk
The following is the address of news.orpheusnet.co.uk, which can be
accessed by other systems.
*ping 86.54.100.215
PING 86.54.100.215 (86.54.100.215): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 86.54.100.215 64 chars, ret=-1
--- 86.54.100.215 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Check the address cache
*arp -a
iyonix (192.168.0.2) at (incomplete)
? (192.168.0.99) at (incomplete)
? (192.168.0.255) at (incomplete)
*
Escape
*
Escape
Try the router
*ping 192.168.0.99
PING 192.168.0.99 (192.168.0.99): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
--- 192.168.0.99 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Who is out there?
*ping 192.168.0.255
PING 192.168.0.255 (192.168.0.255): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.072 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=23.516 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.059 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=23.262 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.054 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=23.187 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.054 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=23.304 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.053 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=23.178 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=0.054 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=23.275 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=0.061 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=23.082 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=0.059 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=23.116 ms (DUP!)
--- 192.168.0.255 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, +8 duplicates, 0% packet
loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.053/11.649/23.516 ms
*
What did we find?
*arp -a
iyonix (192.168.0.2) at (incomplete)
hp5m (192.168.0.5) at 0:60:b0:40:21:cd
armx6 (192.168.0.20) at 0:1f:7b:b4:1c:7c permanent
? (192.168.0.99) at (incomplete)
? (192.168.0.255) at (incomplete)
*
(The Iyonix at 192.168.0.2 is currently shut down. The router IS
running.)
NOW REBOOT THE ROUTER
*ping 192.168.0.99
PING 192.168.0.99 (192.168.0.99): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Host is down
ping: wrote 192.168.0.99 64 chars, ret=-1
--- 192.168.0.99 ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
*ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
eth0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.0.20 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
ether 00:1f:7b:b4:1c:7c
Router and DNS addresses are both set to 192.168.0.99
INTERESTINGLY
Logging on to the router, Netgear DGN2200V4, and using the ping tool
there, it cannot ping either the ArmX6 or the HP5M printer, which the
ArmX6 can ping. The router says there is no more recent version of its
firmware.
MORE TESTS
I shut down the ArmX6, powered off the network switcvh and the
router. Powered on the switch and router, then when they had settled,
booted the ArmX6. Problem is still present.
Shut down the ArmX6 and turned its power off at the wall. Waited 30
seconds, powered on. Still have a problem.
Shut down ArmX6, powered off everything except the router and went
out.
Returned 2 hours later. Powered on, everything works.
The problem seems to surface after several hours of use. Could it be
thermal?
--
Alan Adams, from Northamptonshire
alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.nckc.org.uk/
---
To alter your preferences or leave the group,
visit
//www.freelists.org/list/armini-support
List-related queries to info@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
