riorama Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Greeting all ! Ive come to you for some help. I know, I know. "This guy must have all the answers". But clearly after today I am convinced i have none of the answers. I can't get netwoked, darnet. I have a linux box, MDK 10, a7v8x-x MB, Nforce 8x agp, xp2500, 512 corsair, yada yada. I recently moved, and in moving had to change internet provider from charter cable (sucked), to qwest dsl(don't know yet). I have two computers, an XP (this one), and my linux box (that one.). This one (winXp) is reading the network just fine, and I am using the internet. The Linux box cannot get to the internet. More specifically... MCC gives me a look at my NIC, and is reading the connection just fine. Through konqueror I can view my dsl actiontech modem (192.168.0.1) and I can read it lightening fast. So one would logically <i>assume</i> that I was netwoked. I have tried swapping cables, and even hooked up a router to see if the connection of stable . Everything seems to be fine, but when (on the linux machine) I try to see anything it times out. Occasionally I can get the text of a page to load, but it takes several minutes, and all other facits of the page time out. I hope this is making sense. To recap then... Ive got a known-to-be-working lan connection plugged into a perhaps-known-to-be-working linux box, and reqests to the internet timeout, or load just a trickle of information and then give up. What the heck? Is there some setting somewhere for the speed? Ive tried a second nic card in the linux box, and again, that card was read, the module worked, and I was able to see the dsl modem and internet just trickled in, if at all. So its not the onboard lan, or pci bus, the modem, the cables, the connection, or the sevice. All of these things seem to be working. I just can't seem to get to the internet at all(other that a sprinkle of info). Arrrggghhh! Now, I know your thinking "i don't wanna touch this, this looks awful." But I could really use your help! Im at my 6 hours-on-the-same-problem point and getting nowhere. Thanks to all who take a look at this! Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streeter Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Have a look in /etc/resolv.conf - is the nameserver set up correctly? Failing that, go through the simple network setup and then get back to us with the output of the commands and contents of the files listed if it is still no better. You could also install a packet sniffer (ethereal is on your install disk) to see what is happening, if you understand a little about networking. chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riorama Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Thanks! I'm in the midst of trying to use the resolve function. Since I last posted (yesterday) I tried another experiment. I installed MDK 9.0, then a fresh install of 9.2. Both 9.0 and 9.2 were able to read/use internet just fine! However when I upgraded the 9.2 to 10 it stopped working again. The only thing I can guess is that maybe its a kernel issue, or a module issue? So I reinstalled 9.2 and of course it works fine out of the box. The older mdk can read the internet off of this motherboard. Have there been big changes to the via modules since the update to 2.6.x or am I looking up the wrong tree? Anyway, I'll reinstall 10, and run /etc/resolv.conf , and then take a look at simple network setup. Any ideas about the chipset/kernel maybe? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riorama Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 OK I tried /etc/resolv.conf, and I didn't have permissions, so I su'd to root, and still no permissions, so I changed them so I could read it. This is what they had to say.... /etc/resolv.conf: line 1: search: command not found /etc/resolv.conf: line 2: nameserver: command not found /etc/resolv.conf: line 3: nameserver: command not found Any thoughts on this output? Also, since I reinstalled mdk 10 certain sites work ok, but a little slow(I am using it now), while still huge commercial sites time out (www.cnn.com, www.msn.com). Wierd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 (edited) search XXX XXX is your local domain or the domain you want to append to your url's if none is specified say your domain is "myhome" if you type "mycomputer" in your browsers addressbar, it will be translated to mycomputer.myhome nameserver YYY YYY is the dns-server to contact ... This is your providers DNS-server (you can have multiple nameserver-entries ). I don't have a local network, but I suppose this is your gateway-computer (???) or your own dns-server ofcourse ... I use ppp and with that there is an option usepeerdns so that the dns-servers are filled in automatically ... hopes this helps some and is correct :). You can edit these values in mandrake's control center under the networking-options Edited August 12, 2004 by Michel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riorama Posted August 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 OK, kwrite /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 gives us this : DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=dhcp NETMASK=255.255.255.0 ONBOOT=yes Whereas /etc/resolv.conf gave us this: search domain.actdsltmp nameserver 192.168.0.1 nameserver 205.171.x.x I added the x's it was some other number kwrite /etc/sysconfig/network gave us: NETWORKING=yes I added iptables -t nat -D PREROUTING -i eth0 -j loc_dnat to the bottom of /etc/rc.d/rc.local and did ifup eth0 Determining IP information for eth0... done Last but not least, I did ping 192.168.0.1 which gave us........ PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=1.42 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.962 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.961 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.961 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=0.969 ms Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=0.866 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=0.955 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=0.948 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=0.956 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=255 time=0.941 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=0.949 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=255 time=0.965 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=255 time=0.958 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=255 time=0.943 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=255 time=1.00 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=255 time=0.958 ms ICE default IO error handler doing an exit(), pid = 3105, errno = 0 ICE default IO error handler doing an exit(), pid = 3110, errno = 0 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=255 time=0.970 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=255 time=0.936 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=255 time=0.947 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=255 time=0.952 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=255 time=0.952 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=255 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=255 time=0.950 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=24 ttl=255 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=255 time=0.955 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=26 ttl=255 time=0.943 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=255 time=0.960 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=255 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=255 time=0.960 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=30 ttl=255 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=255 time=0.954 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=32 ttl=255 time=0.962 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=33 ttl=255 time=0.940 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=255 time=0.944 ms and seems to be heading on to infinity. Does any of this help find the problem, or am I just crazy. I can access the mandrake users page, but the link to simple networking was timed out over and over, finally had to get it from out xp machine. Why does this page "work" and google wont? I wish I knew these things! Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streeter Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Try hashing out the 'nameserver 192.168.0.1' in /etc/resolv.conf - this will force your Linux box to use your ISPs nameserver - presumeably at 205.171.x.x (you should check this address on your ISPs website - BTW you don't need to x.x this one out - it's public) The nameserver will probably be reset when using DHCP, so I would recommend setting up with a static address, as in the howto. To stop a ping, press 'control c' or use ping -c 5 192.168.0.1 (must add this to the howto...) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riorama Posted August 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 OK I hashed out the namserver 192.168.0.1 portion of the /etc/resolv.conf and the same issue seems to be happening . I can't seem to get 90%of web pages to load. Whats wierd is that certain ones will load without any hassle at all. Example: When I go to load www.msn.com (I wouldnt normally, but hey) the progress bar for the page loading zips accross like it was loading fast, but then nothing comes up. and it get stuck on "retrieving 39.1k from http://www.msn.com (27 k/s)" While I just watched the progress bar shoot accross, whats the posssibility that it isnt a networking thing at all, maybe its just the way my box is trying to read the pages? Wierd. Just wierd. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riorama Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Greetings, Just to follow up, I have put 9.2 back on my box, as no 2.6.x kernel support for this chipset. All of the available drivers from the corporate website are for 2.4.x and earlier. I believe this to be the problem, but have no actual proof other that the fact that otherwise it works. Thanks, though! I appreciate your help, and if anyone comes up with a better solutionplease write Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.