Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

BTW I also have a SuSE 10.0 Eval on an other computer, and here it runs ok from WinScp to the computer.

Erik Jakobsen

check you firewall on suse 10 turn it off

Thank you Hans, but it is turned off :-( Its a general problem in that I cannot ping the SuSE computer from any Windows computer, nor from my Linux server. The SuSE runs fixed IP. Erik

Jerry Westrick wrote:

Sounds like a network problem... Have you confirmed that the network is setup correctly and working?

Jerry

Hello Jerry. Yes I agree it does sounds like a networkproblem. How can I confirm, that the network is setup correctly and working ?. If I run an ifconfig the right IP's are shown, and I can also send and receive mails, and can browse the internet. Erik

On Sunday 22 January 2006 21.54, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

BTW I also have a SuSE 10.0 Eval on an other computer, and here it runs ok from WinScp to the computer.

Erik Jakobsen

check you firewall on suse 10 turn it off

Thank you Hans, but it is turned off :-(

Its a general problem in that I cannot ping the SuSE computer from any Windows computer, nor from my Linux server. The SuSE runs fixed IP.

Erik

Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

BTW I also have a SuSE 10.0 Eval on an other computer, and here it runs ok from WinScp to the computer.

Erik Jakobsen

check you firewall on suse 10 turn it off

Thank you Hans, but it is turned off :-(

Its a general problem in that I cannot ping the SuSE computer from any Windows computer, nor from my Linux server. The SuSE runs fixed IP.

Erik

can suse ping it self and does the light flash on the nic card ?

Yes suse pings itself ok, but the light doesn't flash on the nic card

Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

BTW I also have a SuSE 10.0 Eval on an other computer, and here it runs ok from WinScp to the computer.

Erik Jakobsen

check you firewall on suse 10 turn it off

Thank you Hans, but it is turned off :-(

Its a general problem in that I cannot ping the SuSE computer from any Windows computer, nor from my Linux server. The SuSE runs fixed IP.

Erik

can suse ping it self and does the light flash on the nic card ?

Yes suse pings itself ok, but the light doesn't flash on the nic card

as root type ifconfig -a send us that

Here it is : # ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:69:00:0E:10:8F inet addr:192.168.1.9 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::269:ff:fe0e:108f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:28510 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:26618 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:9599984 (9.1 Mb) TX bytes:2325944 (2.2 Mb) Interrupt:11 Base address:0xc000 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:260 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:260 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:22231 (21.7 Kb) TX bytes:22231 (21.7 Kb) sit0 Link encap:IPv6-in-IPv4 NOARP MTU:1480 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

Hans Krueger wrote:

what are the address of your other boxes how is your lan set up do you have Internet Access for your net work ? what does route -n give you ? as root do you have an other nic card to try I had some work and not others no blinking light on the nic

----adslmodem------server---------------switch--------192.168.1.4-Windows XP (2-nic's,fixedip 192.168.1.9-the suse faulty box for the first nic 192.168.1.5-Fujitsu Siemens Lifebook 192.168.1.1 for the 2'nd nic) Yes I have Internet Access. Here's the result of route -n: # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Yes I have just tested with a new NIC card, but unfortunately it was giving the same result. Erik

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Hans Krueger wrote:

Hi.

I just switched back to the old NIC in my susebox, and installed the suse10.0 Eval HardDisk I have.

Now all is running fine, and I can ping to the susebox, and can get access from WinScp to the susebox.

To make it quite clear. The problem I have is with a newly purchased SuSE 10 in a box.

The culprit must be somewhere in the new box'ed version, but its many years since I have had that sort of problem(s) with suse versions.

Erik

does it use the same driver for the nic ? what do you have for hardware ? -- Hans hanskrueger@adelphia.net

Dave Howorth wrote:

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

does it use the same driver for the nic ? what do you have for hardware ?

Could you also post the output of the ping and traceroute commands from the server to the suse box, from the suse box to the server, and from the suse box to itself both with the old NIC and the new one?

Cheers, Dave

Sure I can Dave, and welcome. I'll do it today or early tomorrow. -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Dave Howorth wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

does it use the same driver for the nic ? what do you have for hardware ? Could you also post the output of the ping and traceroute commands from the server to the suse box, from the suse box to the server, and from the suse box to itself both with the old NIC and the new one?

Cheers, Dave

BTW Dave, the NIC is the same in both cases. Only difference is the 2 HDD's. So I do the tests with the 2 HDD's

Hmm, I'm confused. What's confusing me is that you wrote:

I just switched back to the old NIC in my susebox, and installed the suse10.0 Eval HardDisk I have.

I took that to mean that you had two NICs and I suspect Hans did as well. And looking at your hardware description, you state that you do have two NICs. So I'm not sure what you actually did? In any case, what I was hoping for is that you would run the commands both on the working and non-working versions of the system, so we can see a bit more of what's happening. Cheers, Dave

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Is it all ok now ?.

Yes, I understand now, thanks :)

I will do the tests you suggested Dave but with the 2 HDD's. The one with the suse10.0eval, and the other with the suse10.0in a box

Sounds good. Dave

Dave Howorth wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Is it all ok now ?.

Yes, I understand now, thanks :)

...

I will do the tests you suggested Dave but with the 2 HDD's. The one with the suse10.0eval, and the other with the suse10.0in a box

Sounds good. Dave

Hi Dave, hi Hans. Now I have done the tests.

From the server to the ok suse box:

#PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.168 ms --- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.168/0.185/0.203/0.022 ms, pipe 2 #traceroute traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 lajka3 (192.168.1.9) 0.290 ms 0.180 ms 0.121 ms

From the ok susebox to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.169 ms --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.169/0.198/0.256/0.043 ms # traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 0.160 ms 0.106 ms 0.141 ms

From the ok suse to the ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.051 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.043 ms --- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.042/0.045/0.051/0.006 ms # traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

From the server to the not ok suse:

traceroute ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 12 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 10998ms # traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * *

From the not ok suse to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.214 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.223 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.239 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.188 ms --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 3999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.188/0.212/0.239/0.022 ms # traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 mail.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.1) 0.156 ms 0.103 ms 0.101 ms

From the not ok suse to the not ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.071 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.057 ms --- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.057/0.063/0.071/0.005 ms # traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms I hope that tells something. /Erik -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Dave Howorth wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Is it all ok now ?.

Yes, I understand now, thanks :)

...

I will do the tests you suggested Dave but with the 2 HDD's. The one with the suse10.0eval, and the other with the suse10.0in a box

Sounds good. Dave

Hi Dave, hi Hans.

Now I have done the tests.

...

From the server to the ok suse box:

#PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.168 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.168/0.185/0.203/0.022 ms, pipe 2

#traceroute traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 lajka3 (192.168.1.9) 0.290 ms 0.180 ms 0.121 ms

...

From the ok susebox to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.169 ms

--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.169/0.198/0.256/0.043 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 0.160 ms 0.106 ms 0.141 ms

...

From the ok suse to the ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.051 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.043 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.042/0.045/0.051/0.006 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

...

From the server to the not ok suse:

traceroute ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 12 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 10998ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * *

...

From the not ok suse to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.214 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.223 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.239 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.188 ms

--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 3999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.188/0.212/0.239/0.022 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 mail.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.1) 0.156 ms 0.103 ms 0.101 ms

...

From the not ok suse to the not ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.071 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.057 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.057/0.063/0.071/0.005 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

I hope that tells something.

/Erik

I got to think about this one just a thought have you tried knoppix on it ?

Hi Hans. No I haven't, and I'm not aware on how to test with Knoppix. Could you please explain it for me ?. Thanks in advance -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Dave Howorth wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Is it all ok now ?.

Yes, I understand now, thanks :)

...

I will do the tests you suggested Dave but with the 2 HDD's. The one with the suse10.0eval, and the other with the suse10.0in a box

Sounds good. Dave

Hi Dave, hi Hans.

Now I have done the tests.

...

From the server to the ok suse box:

#PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.168 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.168/0.185/0.203/0.022 ms, pipe 2

#traceroute traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 lajka3 (192.168.1.9) 0.290 ms 0.180 ms 0.121 ms

...

From the ok susebox to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.169 ms

--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.169/0.198/0.256/0.043 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 0.160 ms 0.106 ms 0.141 ms

...

From the ok suse to the ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.051 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.043 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.042/0.045/0.051/0.006 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

...

From the server to the not ok suse:

traceroute ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 12 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 10998ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * *

...

From the not ok suse to the server:

# ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.214 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.223 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.239 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.188 ms

--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 3999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.188/0.212/0.239/0.022 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.1 traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 mail.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.1) 0.156 ms 0.103 ms 0.101 ms

...

From the not ok suse to the not ok suse:

# ping 192.168.1.9 PING 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.071 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.057 ms

--- 192.168.1.9 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.057/0.063/0.071/0.005 ms

# traceroute 192.168.1.9 traceroute to 192.168.1.9 (192.168.1.9), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lajka3.urbakken.dk (192.168.1.9) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

I hope that tells something.

/Erik

I got to think about this one just a thought have you tried knoppix on it ?

Hi Hans. No I haven't, and I'm not aware on how to test with Knoppix. Could you please explain it for me ?. Thanks in advance

go to www.knoppix.com and down load the iso and burn it to a cd then boot from the cd in the trouble machine and see if it gives you problems I used it to run down troubles on my stuff some times hardware can be a real bear

I'm dowloading the iso now, and will be back after having tested it. -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 11:40 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Erik Jakobsen [01-25-06 10:25]:

...

I'm dowloading the iso now, and will be back after having tested it.

While this converstaion may be interesting, is it really necessary to completely quote the last 37 instances.

Please reinstall the <delete> key and use it.

Your attention to this WILL BE appreciated. /dcc Patrick Shanahan: one new Industrial Strength Cluebat ! You seem to have worn yours down a bit lately.. The new product promises a larger more satisfying "THWACK! THUD!" sound when you use it often. I have been told this by the engineers. The company IS working on an automated model.. which might cut the workload. But.... <shrug> ;-D

-- j "... it's all right now, I learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Erik Jakobsen [01-25-06 10:25]:

...

I'm dowloading the iso now, and will be back after having tested it.

While this converstaion may be interesting, is it really necessary to completely quote the last 37 instances.

Please reinstall the <delete> key and use it.

Your attention to this WILL BE appreciated.

thanks

Ok Patrick. The conversation may go on in another way not to bore you. -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Dave Howorth wrote:

Didn't tell me as much as I'd hoped :( But at least it confirms that the situation is not completely wacky.

The only oddity I noticed is that "From the not ok suse to the server" shows a hostname (mail.urbakken.dk) whilst "From the ok susebox to the server" does not. I don't know what that means though.

It seems to me that what you're observing is that everything works as long as you initiate the network traffic from the suse box (ping, mail, browser etc), whilst everything fails if the traffic initiates from outside the suse box (ping, scp etc). Is that so?

In which case: (1) It does sound like the firewall is a possible culprit. I know you said it is off, but you have double-checked that, yes?!

(2) Another possibility is the network service configuration. How do you cause daemons to be started? I run 9.3 so it might be different, but I use xinetd (from the Network Services page of YaST). Have you enabled that? If not, what method do you use? [that doesn't account for ping, AFAIK, but I don't know how that works]

If neither of these ideas help to find the problem, can you post whatever network-related stuff there is from dmesg and /var/log/messages from both the working and non-working systems?

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

just a thought have you tried knoppix on it ?

Hi Hans. No I haven't, and I'm not aware on how to test with Knoppix. Could you please explain it for me ?.

Knoppix is a Debian-based stand-alone system (runs from the CD). It's usually very good at figuring out the hardware configuration, so it's quite common to start that and then copy the configuration files it generates to fix problems.

Cheers, Dave

I'm downloading the Knoppix at the present. As soon as I have tested it, I'll reply to your queries. -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Hi Dave, hi Hans Maybe you are right, that it is a Firewall problem. Here is a line from my /var/log/boot.msg file: "Starting Firewall Initialization (phase 1 of 2) SuSEfirewall2: Warning: ip6tables does not support state matching. Extended IPv6 support disabled." I'm writing this on my ok susebox, and here's there is no information on the Firewall in the boot.msg file. The xinetd is not started, and cannot be. I do the Firewall and xinetd start/stop from the Yast System System Services. What do you think about that ? /Erik

Maybe you are right, that it is a Firewall problem. Here is a line from

...

my /var/log/boot.msg file: Dave Howorth "Starting Firewall Initialization (phase 1 of 2) SuSEfirewall2: Warning: ip6tables does not support state matching. Extended IPv6 support disabled."

I take it that is from the problem system? I don't think you should be seeing this if the firewall is really turned off. Is that from a recent boot? I don't know anything about the firewall (I just make sure it is off :) Perhaps somebody else knows how to be sure it's turned off properly.

Yes its from the problem system. I agree with you about seeing/not seeing the firewall. Yes I just rebooted the problem system and could read the text, and after I could see the line in boot.msg. Did you read my website with the screendump?.

...

I'm writing this on my ok susebox, and here's there is no information on the Firewall in the boot.msg file.

That's what I'd expect, and none in the messages file either.

So its is here on the 10.0 eval -ok system-.

...

The xinetd is not started, and cannot be. I do the Firewall and xinetd start/stop from the Yast System System Services.

I take it these comments refer to the problem system? So you're saying that if you type Dave Howorth ps -fe | grep xinetd

This is from the ok system: ps -fe | grep xinetd root 9177 9155 0 11:27 pts/3 00:00:00 grep xinetd

you don't see a line that mentions /usr/sbin/xinetd? But you do see that line on the system that works?

I did not test it on the problem system, but I'll do it.

What do you mean that it cannot be started? You can't find the page in YaST? (Network Services/Network Services (xinetd)) The buttons are disabled? You can click them but nothing happens? (look in the YaST logs if so)

In the Yast system you can switch on/off the firewall, and the xinetd as well, the ssh and so on. Right ?.

Erik also wrote:

...

I'm writing this on the ok susebox, so I cannot see if xinetd is enabled or not. I'll try to see it later on today. But I'm absolutely not sure how I cause daemons to be started. Its a darksite of my knowledge :-(

Don't worry about it. Let's just make sure xinetd is working.

...

...

If neither of these ideas help to find the problem, can you post whatever network-related stuff there is from dmesg and /var/log/messages from both the working and non-working systems?

Sure I can, but I'll wait untill your reply to this has arrived.

I think now would be a good time to do this :)

As some of the files are huge, and I'm not the best to figure out what has relation to the problem, I'm afraid of sending the files here. What can I do then ?.

Cheers, Dave

-- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Did you read my website with the screendump?.

Yes, I saw your screen dump. That's from YaST's System/System Services (Runlevel) screen, isn't it? The asterisk is worrying. What about YaST's Security & Users/Firewall screen? Does that say Start Firewall when booting or manually? Is the current status running or not? Is the Stop Firewall Now button enabled? If so, press it! Ok Dave. Yes its from YaST's System/System Services (Runlevel) screen. Here I have stopped firewalls before. I went in to the YaST's Security & Users/Firewall screen, where I have never been before. Here I could see, that the firewall was running as also the boot information told me. I switched it of according to your informations. What means the asterix ?

...

...

...

The xinetd is not started, and cannot be. I do the Firewall and xinetd start/stop from the Yast System System Services. I take it these comments refer to the problem system? So you're saying that if you type ps -fe | grep xinetd

This is from the ok system:

ps -fe | grep xinetd root 9177 9155 0 11:27 pts/3 00:00:00 grep xinetd

Hmm, if you're not running xinetd on the ok system then you don't need it on the other system either, I guess. So that leaves the firewall.

I'm not, and the other system runs ok now.

...

As some of the files are huge, and I'm not the best to figure out what has relation to the problem, I'm afraid of sending the files here.

Let's see what you find on the Firewall screen first. If that doesn't fix the problem, you can send me the files directly.

Yes Dave. Thanks to your information, I found out where the culprit was to be found, as my firewall is completely switched of now. I now can run WinScp to the -before- problem machine, and it was very nice. But was a hard nut to crack. Thank you very much for your help, and your patience. I'm very greatfull to you for your assistance.

Cheers, Dave

-- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Dave Howorth wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

What means the asterix ?

There's an explanation on the left of that screen. But simplified too much, it means it's warning you. The situation is more complicated that it is telling you and some more action is required. Finding out what action is the hard part!

Ok, I have to look there.

...

Thank you very much for your help, and your patience. I'm very greatfull to you for your assistance.

Glad to be of help. Dave

And I'm glad to be helped. Also I sent Hans a thanks! -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Dave Howorth wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Dave Howorth wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

...

does it use the same driver for the nic ? what do you have for hardware ?

Could you also post the output of the ping and traceroute commands from the server to the suse box, from the suse box to the server, and from the suse box to itself both with the old NIC and the new one?

Cheers, Dave

BTW Dave, the NIC is the same in both cases. Only difference is the 2 HDD's. So I do the tests with the 2 HDD's

Hmm, I'm confused. What's confusing me is that you wrote:

...

I just switched back to the old NIC in my susebox, and installed the suse10.0 Eval HardDisk I have.

I took that to mean that you had two NICs and I suspect Hans did as well. And looking at your hardware description, you state that you do have two NICs. So I'm not sure what you actually did?

In any case, what I was hoping for is that you would run the commands both on the working and non-working versions of the system, so we can see a bit more of what's happening.

Cheers, Dave

Sorry that I'm confusing you both. I'll try to explain. My susebox has an onboard NIC, that I have used for both the suse10.0 eval, and for the suse10 in a box. OK ?. Then after Hans has wrote me a message, I excluded the onboard NIC, and installed another NIC in one of the slots. It was the same not ok working on my LAN. Then I removed the new NIC from its slot, and enabled the onboard NIC again. Then I took the HDD with the suse 10.0eval, and all work ok.

Where I have 2 NIC's is in my Server. One for the WAN, and the other one for the LAN.

Is it all ok now ?.

I will do the tests you suggested Dave but with the 2 HDD's. The one with the suse10.0eval, and the other with the suse10.0in a box

Are there more confusions now ?. Please feel free to tell me it, as I want to find out what is wrong.

Thanks!

we wait to see what you get -- Hans hanskrueger@adelphia.net

Hans Krueger wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Hans Krueger wrote:

Hi.

I just switched back to the old NIC in my susebox, and installed the suse10.0 Eval HardDisk I have.

Now all is running fine, and I can ping to the susebox, and can get access from WinScp to the susebox.

To make it quite clear. The problem I have is with a newly purchased SuSE 10 in a box.

The culprit must be somewhere in the new box'ed version, but its many years since I have had that sort of problem(s) with suse versions.

Erik

does it use the same driver for the nic ? what do you have for hardware ?

Yes it uses the same driver, as its the onboard NIC. The only difference is the harddisk. It can't be true, that it should be necessary to reinstall the suse 10 in the box :-) -- Venlig hilsen - Best regards - Erik Jakobsen SuSE Linux 10.0 Eval.. Licensed HAM-RADIO with the callsign OZ4KK http://www.urbakken.dk Registered Linux user #114875 with http://counter.li.org

jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

Many times over I hear or see something like... "you should try foo, it's a really easy way to make your desktop dance to your tune" Be sure you have Python AND QT installed ; and I believe, if memory serves , the QT is something specifically tied to Python, or the other way around. Truth to say; I may not have the specifics on the Qt module because my brain is misfiring today.. <sigh> Migraines would be a heckova weapon if only they could harness it.

[snip] The web site below shows what I've done with Qt (no python) for model building, data processing, and visualization. I bit the bullet and bought a commercial Qt license; it was the best move I ever made. http://www.gemacs.com/cem/index.php Click on the menu items on the left hand side for more info and screenshots. Hope this helps, Buddy Coffey Advanced Electromagnetics