Fedora 11 RC1 installation testing

Mon Jun 1 23:22:22 UTC 2009

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> wrote:
> Partha Bagchi wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Partha Bagchi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic
>>>> than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the
>>>> connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is
>>>> unreachable when pinging the router:
>>>> ping 192.168.1.1
>>>> PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
>>>>>
>>>>> From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>>>>> From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
>>>>> From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
>>>>
>>>> ^C
>>>> --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
>>>> 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time
>>>> 5224ms
>>>>
>>> I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there
>>> is a
>>> default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host,"
>>> but
>>> some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP
>>> packets
>>> saying so.
>>>
>>> If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I
>>> don't
>>> find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I
>>> expect.
>>> I suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but
>>> the router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp.
>>> You
>>> comment on "nearer" suggests that.
>>>
>>> My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for
>>> starting a connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a
>>> feature,
>>> FC11 is working slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
>>>
>>> Hope any of this helps.
>>>
>>>> uname -a
>>>> Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22
>>>> EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>>>>
>>>> lspci:
>>>> ...
>>>> 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X
>>>> Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01)
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> [partha at Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network
>>>> NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
>>>> NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586
>>>> system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch
>>>> NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
>>>> NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586
>>>> system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch
>>>> NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
>>>> NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
>>>>
>>>> No additional information in /var/log/messages.
>>>>
>>>> Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer"
>>>> to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Partha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where can we get RC1?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've buried the link under the "What to test" section -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To_Test
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will these be available via rsync?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've tried the instructions here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testing
>>>>>> and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows
>>>>>> the stage directory is not present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync.  My
>>>>> understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to
>>>>> assist with release candidate validation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> fedora-test-list mailing list
>>>>> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
>>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
>>>  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
>>> the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
>>>
>>> --
>>> fedora-test-list mailing list
>>> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
>>> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my
>> problem.
>>
>> I don't believe 'netstat -m' exists? What am I looking for here?
>>
> I have always combined the two letters, but I'm sure "netstat -r -n" will do
> the same thing, verify that the routing table contains no surprises.
>
My bad I read that as the letter "M" and not "RN". Sorry about that.
netstat -r -n shows no surprises (from an su terminal).
>> Also, do you expect the output of tcpdump when I am further away from
>> the router? I should mention that the router is in the basement and I
>> am able to get a fine signal on the ground floor. When I step outside
>> a few feet away that I cannot get a signal. I did not have this
>> problem with Fedora 10, same hardware.
>>
> If I read your original post right, you said you had a 40% signal. You might
> enter "iwconfig" from a command line and see what the values are for working
> and non-working. If you run tcpdump on the wireless NIC you *may* see
> packets being sent and ICMP error packets coming back. I'm just suggesting
> that it will provide more information at a low cost in time.
>
iwconfig and NetworkManager track pretty well. My guess is that
NetworkManager simply reports what iwconfig says.

My problem was I don't know what to look for. tcpdump is not very
illuminating to me.

>> Are you familiar with ath9k?
>>
> One of the machines I have used required that driver, but I'm not a regular
> user. I have chased wireless problems on at least six or seven laptops, so I
> can suggest things which have provided useful information in the past. The
> network list or wireless list might also be worth reading or asking, but a
> change between Fedora versions is likely to be release related.
>
> I expect the laptop will show something on tcpdump, which may or may not be
> useful. As noted, it's a low cost thing to try, I usually get all the cheap
> information I can and see if something sticks out.
>
I will try.

As an aside, ath9k was being rigorously developed. I stopped following
their mailing list, so don't know the current status. However, as I
stated, F10 did not have any problems. F11RC1 (fully updated) does.

> --
> Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
>  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
> the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
>
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>

Thanks!
Partha