Re: Strange problem with NIC
Check your active network components. The network card, and the switck may speak the speed auto negotiation with dialect. Therefore they can always negotiate, and there will no valuable traffic. If it is, set the link speed manually. R.
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Check your active network components. The network card, and the switck may speak the speed auto negotiation with dialect. Therefore they can always negotiate, and there will no valuable traffic. If it is, set the link speed manually. R. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
mta-mad:~# mii-tool eth0: negotiated 100baseT4 flow-control, link ok Saludos, --Roman -- PGP Fingerprint: 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:07 +0800, you wrote: >Run mii-tool and see what speed your card is using first. > >- Original Message - >From: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 05:49 PM >Subject: Strange problem with NIC > > > >Hi, > >I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 >10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 >Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per >second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain >the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > >Any idea? TIA >
Re: Strange problem with NIC
mta-mad:~# mii-tool eth0: negotiated 100baseT4 flow-control, link ok Saludos, --Roman -- PGP Fingerprint: 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:07 +0800, you wrote: >Run mii-tool and see what speed your card is using first. > >- Original Message - >From: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 05:49 PM >Subject: Strange problem with NIC > > > >Hi, > >I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 >10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 >Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per >second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain >the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > >Any idea? TIA > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Hello, On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Roman Medina wrote: > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA we had this problem with wrong half-duplex/full-duplex settings. They appeared when both of switch and nic were configured for autonegotiation. Disabling autonegotiation for the switch port solved the problem. HTH, Hans Peter -- /Quelltext AG -- Professional Software Services // // Hans Peter Wiedau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, CEO // // Ostenhellweg 31, 44135 Dortmund, Germany // \\/ fon +49 231 9503750, fax +49 231 9503751 \\ Web http://www.quelltext.com
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Hello, On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Roman Medina wrote: > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA we had this problem with wrong half-duplex/full-duplex settings. They appeared when both of switch and nic were configured for autonegotiation. Disabling autonegotiation for the switch port solved the problem. HTH, Hans Peter -- /Quelltext AG -- Professional Software Services // // Hans Peter Wiedau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, CEO // // Ostenhellweg 31, 44135 Dortmund, Germany // \\/ fon +49 231 9503750, fax +49 231 9503751 \\ Web http://www.quelltext.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Hi Roman, Try and see if there are any newer drivers available, maybe there is a bug in the card with your particular RealTek card. Check on RealTek's site perhaps. It might be worth looking at dmesg to see if there are any error messages related to the card. You might try and swap the card for another just to be sure it is the card itself. Although I usually use Intel cards I have never had problems with RealTek myself either. Hope that helps, Fred. On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 09:49, Roman Medina wrote: > Hi, > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA > > Saludos, > --Roman > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] -- Fred Clausen - Professional Services Engineer Unit 7 Skylines Business Village Limeharbour Docklands London E14 9TS Tel: +44 (0)207 538 8230 - Fax: +44 (0)207 538 8246 Ext: 209- Web: www.xinitsystems.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Hi Roman, Try and see if there are any newer drivers available, maybe there is a bug in the card with your particular RealTek card. Check on RealTek's site perhaps. It might be worth looking at dmesg to see if there are any error messages related to the card. You might try and swap the card for another just to be sure it is the card itself. Although I usually use Intel cards I have never had problems with RealTek myself either. Hope that helps, Fred. On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 09:49, Roman Medina wrote: > Hi, > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA > > Saludos, > --Roman > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] -- Fred Clausen - Professional Services Engineer Unit 7 Skylines Business Village Limeharbour Docklands London E14 9TS Tel: +44 (0)207 538 8230 - Fax: +44 (0)207 538 8246 Ext: 209- Web: www.xinitsystems.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
We've run Realtek cards on some servers, and they've worked flawlessly for us. We never pushed them to the absolute max, but at one point they were pushing about 50Mbps (far for the theoretical 100Mbps... but you'll never get that anyway). - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 02:26 PM Subject: Re: Strange problem with NIC > is it Realtech card? if so go get 3com/Intel > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Roman Medina wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > > > Any idea? TIA > > > > Saludos, > > --Roman > > > > -- > > PGP Fingerprint: > > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Strange problem with NIC
is it Realtech card? if so go get 3com/Intel On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Roman Medina wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA > > Saludos, > --Roman > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Strange problem with NIC
We've run Realtek cards on some servers, and they've worked flawlessly for us. We never pushed them to the absolute max, but at one point they were pushing about 50Mbps (far for the theoretical 100Mbps... but you'll never get that anyway). - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 02:26 PM Subject: Re: Strange problem with NIC > is it Realtech card? if so go get 3com/Intel > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Roman Medina wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > > > Any idea? TIA > > > > Saludos, > > --Roman > > > > -- > > PGP Fingerprint: > > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
is it Realtech card? if so go get 3com/Intel On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Roman Medina wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 > 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 > Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per > second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain > the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. > > Any idea? TIA > > Saludos, > --Roman > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: > 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 > [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Run mii-tool and see what speed your card is using first. - Original Message - From: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 05:49 PM Subject: Strange problem with NIC Hi, I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. Any idea? TIA Saludos, --Roman -- PGP Fingerprint: 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem with NIC
Run mii-tool and see what speed your card is using first. - Original Message - From: "Roman Medina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 05:49 PM Subject: Strange problem with NIC Hi, I'm experimenting the following problem: one Debian machine with 1 10/100 Ethernet NIC where its upstream speed is reasonable (2 or 3 Mbytes per second) but its downstream speed is awful (35 kbytes per second ). All experiments are made in a LAN, so I cannot explain the 35 kbytes/s extremely low speed. Any idea? TIA Saludos, --Roman -- PGP Fingerprint: 09BB EFCD 21ED 4E79 25FB 29E1 E47F 8A7D EAD5 6742 [Key ID: 0xEAD56742. Available at KeyServ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:11:52AM -0500, Tim Sailer wrote: > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. that sounds like what happens when the machine is booted in 'emergency' mode, with only / mounted RO. try: fsck / (if necessary) mount -n -o rw,remount / fsck other partitions (if necessary) mount -a craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:11:52AM -0500, Tim Sailer wrote: > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. that sounds like what happens when the machine is booted in 'emergency' mode, with only / mounted RO. try: fsck / (if necessary) mount -n -o rw,remount / fsck other partitions (if necessary) mount -a craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:11, Tim Sailer wrote: > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. To see what is mounted do "cat /proc/mounts". I guess from your description that /proc is not mounted but /etc/mtab suggests that it is. "ls -l /proc" should show what's happening. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:11, Tim Sailer wrote: > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. To see what is mounted do "cat /proc/mounts". I guess from your description that /proc is not mounted but /etc/mtab suggests that it is. "ls -l /proc" should show what's happening. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 00:59, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > > In my experience, unstable is "unstable". > > At times. We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to other distros like Redhat and Caldera (stable still on 2.2 kernel), but thats a topic for a separate discussion. > > > > and came up in a very strange state. No users could log in, only root, and > > > things like ps, w, and top wouldn't work. I was called, got in via ssh, > > > > Why happens when you runs these commands? (What does "wouldn't > > work" mean?) > > They hung. Nothing happened until I hit ^C > > > What do the logs say? > > Nothing. syslogd is one of the things that didn't start. > > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. > > > > > > /proc by hand, started up the utils that didn't start, checked things out > > > the best I could, and rebooted again. Same thing. I've gone through > > > > What do the kernel messages say? > Nothing. > > > What do the logs say? > Nothing Well if syslog isn't started... no wonder. Is it possible to hand-start syslog after the box has started up, to have it record further error messages once it the box has booted up? > > What are these utils that didn't start? (Some network services that need > > to be correctly setup in /etc/rc*.d/ ?) > > networking, syslog, just about anything that needs /proc to me mounted > and readable. > > > > Sometimes when I upgrade from stable to unstable, I have had some packages > > not reinstalled and some software didn't start that should have. > > This machine was running unstable for quite some time, stabley. :) > Yeap, for us too. Although we always upgrade a non-critical box first to see if it breaks anything.
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 00:59, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > In my experience, unstable is "unstable". At times. > > and came up in a very strange state. No users could log in, only root, and > > things like ps, w, and top wouldn't work. I was called, got in via ssh, > > Why happens when you runs these commands? (What does "wouldn't > work" mean?) They hung. Nothing happened until I hit ^C > What do the logs say? Nothing. syslogd is one of the things that didn't start. > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > that proc was also mounted at / ?) Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. > > > /proc by hand, started up the utils that didn't start, checked things out > > the best I could, and rebooted again. Same thing. I've gone through > > What do the kernel messages say? Nothing. > What do the logs say? Nothing > What are these utils that didn't start? (Some network services that need > to be correctly setup in /etc/rc*.d/ ?) networking, syslog, just about anything that needs /proc to me mounted and readable. > Sometimes when I upgrade from stable to unstable, I have had some packages > not reinstalled and some software didn't start that should have. This machine was running unstable for quite some time, stabley. :) Tim
Re: Strange problem
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 00:59, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > > In my experience, unstable is "unstable". > > At times. We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to other distros like Redhat and Caldera (stable still on 2.2 kernel), but thats a topic for a separate discussion. > > > > and came up in a very strange state. No users could log in, only root, and > > > things like ps, w, and top wouldn't work. I was called, got in via ssh, > > > > Why happens when you runs these commands? (What does "wouldn't > > work" mean?) > > They hung. Nothing happened until I hit ^C > > > What do the logs say? > > Nothing. syslogd is one of the things that didn't start. > > > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > > that proc was also mounted at / ?) > > Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* > showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. > > > > > > /proc by hand, started up the utils that didn't start, checked things out > > > the best I could, and rebooted again. Same thing. I've gone through > > > > What do the kernel messages say? > Nothing. > > > What do the logs say? > Nothing Well if syslog isn't started... no wonder. Is it possible to hand-start syslog after the box has started up, to have it record further error messages once it the box has booted up? > > What are these utils that didn't start? (Some network services that need > > to be correctly setup in /etc/rc*.d/ ?) > > networking, syslog, just about anything that needs /proc to me mounted > and readable. > > > > Sometimes when I upgrade from stable to unstable, I have had some packages > > not reinstalled and some software didn't start that should have. > > This machine was running unstable for quite some time, stabley. :) > Yeap, for us too. Although we always upgrade a non-critical box first to see if it breaks anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 00:59, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > In my experience, unstable is "unstable". At times. > > and came up in a very strange state. No users could log in, only root, and > > things like ps, w, and top wouldn't work. I was called, got in via ssh, > > Why happens when you runs these commands? (What does "wouldn't > work" mean?) They hung. Nothing happened until I hit ^C > What do the logs say? Nothing. syslogd is one of the things that didn't start. > What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying > that proc was also mounted at / ?) Hmm. I didn't say that right. Mount showed /proc mounted. 'df' *also* showed /proc mounted, with the same size/used/free as /. > > > /proc by hand, started up the utils that didn't start, checked things out > > the best I could, and rebooted again. Same thing. I've gone through > > What do the kernel messages say? Nothing. > What do the logs say? Nothing > What are these utils that didn't start? (Some network services that need > to be correctly setup in /etc/rc*.d/ ?) networking, syslog, just about anything that needs /proc to me mounted and readable. > Sometimes when I upgrade from stable to unstable, I have had some packages > not reinstalled and some software didn't start that should have. This machine was running unstable for quite some time, stabley. :) Tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, folks. I have a stumper here. An associate has a machine that was > upgraded to unstable in the last few days. The machine was rebooted today, In my experience, unstable is "unstable". > and came up in a very strange state. No users could log in, only root, and > things like ps, w, and top wouldn't work. I was called, got in via ssh, Why happens when you runs these commands? (What does "wouldn't work" mean?) What do the logs say? > and finally had enough sense to run 'mount'. It looks like /proc and / > were exactly the same, which is impossible. I unmounted and remounted What do you mean that it is impossible to be the same? (Are you saying that proc was also mounted at / ?) > /proc by hand, started up the utils that didn't start, checked things out > the best I could, and rebooted again. Same thing. I've gone through What do the kernel messages say? What do the logs say? What are these utils that didn't start? (Some network services that need to be correctly setup in /etc/rc*.d/ ?) > everything I can think of remotely. I can't figure this one out. Has anyone > else ever seen something like this? Sometimes when I upgrade from stable to unstable, I have had some packages not reinstalled and some software didn't start that should have. Jeremy C. Reed echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
