bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) (06/27/91)
I installed FAS209 a couple of days ago, and ahve been experiencing problems. Out-dialing seems to work OK most of the time, although I've experienced a number of "lost line" messages from UUCP. Inbound calls seem to be experiencing difficulties -- now when someone calls in via uucp, for example, a couple of login banners appear, and then a string of bell characters (control-G's). Then it just hangs and times out. This is on ESIX Rev D. FAS 2.08 seemed to be pretty much OK except for the bugs described in the 2.09 fix-sheet (hanging kernel when killing hung processes, messages about too many interrupts, etc). I don't have 16550's yet, they're 16450's or something like that. Bill -- bill@unixland.natick.ma.us ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill OR ..!uunet!world!unixland!bill heiser@world.std.com Public Access Unix 508-655-3848(2400) 508-651-8723(HST) 508-651-8733(PEP-V32)
gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering) (06/28/91)
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes: >I installed FAS209 a couple of days ago, and ahve been experiencing >problems. Out-dialing seems to work OK most of the time, although >I've experienced a number of "lost line" messages from UUCP. > >Inbound calls seem to be experiencing difficulties -- now when someone >calls in via uucp, for example, a couple of login banners appear, and >then a string of bell characters (control-G's). Then it just hangs >and times out. This looks as if your modem throws some junk characters at getty, which thereafter is too confused to let you log in. Are you sure that your modem is quiet by default (`ATE0Q1')? On the other hand, I've seen this behaviour myself when I dialed up a _non_-MNP modem with an MNP modem. The MNP modem sends out a test sequence to let the remote modem know that it wishes to establish an MNP connection. This test sequence looks to a _non_- MNP modem like a string of garbage characters, which it happily passes to getty. getty then behaves the same way as you described. Maybe something other than just FAS changed in your configuration at the same time. All I can say is that I've never seen such behaviour of FAS (or rather getty) without an external cause for it. Uwe -- Uwe Doering | INET : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de Berlin |---------------------------------------------------------------- Germany | UUCP : ...!unido!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (06/28/91)
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes: >I installed FAS209 a couple of days ago, and ahve been experiencing >problems. Out-dialing seems to work OK most of the time, although >I've experienced a number of "lost line" messages from UUCP. > >Inbound calls seem to be experiencing difficulties -- now when someone >calls in via uucp, for example, a couple of login banners appear, and >then a string of bell characters (control-G's). Then it just hangs >and times out. > >This is on ESIX Rev D. FAS 2.08 seemed to be pretty much OK except >for the bugs described in the 2.09 fix-sheet (hanging kernel when killing >hung processes, messages about too many interrupts, etc). > >I don't have 16550's yet, they're 16450's or something like that. I doubt it's the driver. I have FAS 2.09 running under ISC 2.0.2 with a DigiBoard PC/4 and a IDE-I/O card. Six ports total, five of them are NS16550AN chips. Unfortunately, COM1 on the IDE-I/O is soldered in with a 16450. :( And yes, FAS will work with a dumb Digiboard, you just need to make a minor change to space.c. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | MS-DOS??? ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | I don't think so! (*BOP*) ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | Homey don't play dat! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
rob@pact.nl (Rob Kurver) (06/28/91)
In <650R8QP@geminix.in-berlin.de> gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering) writes: >bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes: >>I installed FAS209 a couple of days ago, and ahve been experiencing >>problems. Out-dialing seems to work OK most of the time, although >>I've experienced a number of "lost line" messages from UUCP. I also installed FAS2.09 a couple of days ago, and have similar problems. Dialing out seems to be a bit less stable (more failures than previously) but this may just be my imagination. >>Inbound calls seem to be experiencing difficulties -- now when someone >>calls in via uucp, for example, a couple of login banners appear, and >>then a string of bell characters (control-G's). Then it just hangs >>and times out. I don't even get login banners, just a lot of tildes (~) and junk characters. Every time. As if the speed isn't set right, perhaps? Nothing even vaguely resembling a banner. >This looks as if your modem throws some junk characters at getty, >which thereafter is too confused to let you log in. Are you sure >that your modem is quiet by default (`ATE0Q1')? I don't think it's just the modem throwing junk characters at getty. When I "cu -d" into this machine, I get only junk characters. Nothing resembling a login banner. Cu will give up after a while and fail. Again, this behavior started immediately after installing 2.09. I have never seen it before. >On the other hand, I've seen this behaviour myself when I dialed >up a _non_-MNP modem with an MNP modem. The MNP modem sends out >a test sequence to let the remote modem know that it wishes to >establish an MNP connection. This test sequence looks to a _non_- >MNP modem like a string of garbage characters, which it happily >passes to getty. getty then behaves the same way as you described. >Maybe something other than just FAS changed in your configuration >at the same time. All I can say is that I've never seen such >behaviour of FAS (or rather getty) without an external cause for it. Nothing else that has anything to do with serial lines changed. I can't cu from another machine into this machine anymore. I use the exact some FAS config files as before (in fact, I just copied them from 2.08). I'd go back to FAS 2.08 if I hadn't already removed it from the system :-(. I'd consider a configuration problem if it wasn't for Bill having the same problems. Because he has the same problems I'm afraid either the code contains a bug somewhere, or I should change the configuration from 2.08's and wasn't told about it. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Rob -- PACT Rob Kurver Foulkeslaan 87 rob@pact.nl 2625 RB Delft tel: +31 15 616864 The Netherlands fax: +31 15 610032