Fedora 11 RC1 installation testing

Mon Jun 1 16:00:30 UTC 2009

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.

> 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.

> 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.

-- 
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