jaraeez Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Hi all, I have a starnge problem which has only surfaced when I installed 10.1 (clean install). I ran MDK 10 with no problems whatsoever with regards to my eth connection. My problem is that I have an USR wireless pci nic which is running with the help of Driverloader. This is the exact same setup as I had in MDK 10, but in 10.1 I have noticed that after about 45 mins or so I get a slight lag intermittenly. When I ping before the 45 mins mark this is my result PING 192.168.1.1 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=1.51 ms 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=1.51 ms --- jaraeez ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6005ms & after the 45 min mark PING 192.168.1.1 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=1.52 ms 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=3.72 ms 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=16 ttl=128 time=787 ms 64 bytes from jaraeez (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=22 ttl=128 time=3.10 ms --- jaraeez ping statistics --- 24 packets transmitted, 8 received, 66% packet loss, time 23004ms To be honest I am at a complete loss as to why this is happening. I have updated 10.1, checked logs, etc.. with no clues. ifconfig shows eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:C0:49:CB:EE:62 inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::2c0:49ff:fecb:ee62/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:21444 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:22860 errors:6 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:12366318 (11.7 Mb) TX bytes:3224575 (3.0 Mb) 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:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:4796 (4.6 Kb) TX bytes:4796 (4.6 Kb) iwconfig shows eth1 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"Ragga" Nickname:"redhat1" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462GHz Access Point: 00:C0:49:DA:AB:80 Bit Rate=48Mb/s Tx-Power=10 dBm RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx Power Management:off Link Quality:38/94 Signal level:-50 dBm Noise level:-154 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 Any help would be greatly appreciated.. TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Does nothing appear in dmesg after the 45 mins? It might be worth going to linuxant for help, if they sell you software they should make it work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaraeez Posted April 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Hi, thanks for the reply. Linuxant actually don't charge for my chipset :D (Ti) but I take your point. dmesg shows nothing of relevance. Strange thing is that if I replace the hd with a xp image on it, I have no problems. Do you know of any differences between 10 & 10.1 with regards to network protocols (i was think about IPv6.. but not to clued up)? TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 I suppose you could try turning IPv6 off to see if that helps, This post by arctic should help with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaraeez Posted April 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Cheers for the reply. For now I think its been fixed (I hope!) I after nearly giving up decided to check the AP's website (www.usr.com) for any firmware updates & noticed some beta updates. With nothing to lose & a story shortened the network seems to be stable. I will leave this PC running for a couple of days & take it from there. Thanks again for your interest peeps.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 I'm glad you've got it working. I'll mark this solved but if you have a regression post back and I'll remove it. 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.