v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

DOWNLOAD THE LATEST FIRMWARE HERE
User avatar
sirhc
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 7416
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA
Has thanked: 1608 times
Been thanked: 1325 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:02 pm

ste wrote: I dont like this supporters telling me anything that comes to their mind just to keep me working and be quiet for a while.

I am not sure what to tell you, I am not there or I would gladly try to help you figure it out, I am trying to help as best I can from remote. Sadly I do not have a SIAE link to even lab this or I would.

From your original description of the issue the first thing that came to mind was MTU and the MTU on the Netonix should not be smaller than the devices on either side which it is, not saying this is the issue but it is not right.

I "think" it is something to do with MTU or VLANs.
Support is handled on the Forums not in Emails and PMs.
Before you ask a question use the Search function to see it has been answered before.
To do an Advanced Search click the magnifying glass in the Search Box.
To upload pictures click the Upload attachment link below the BLUE SUBMIT BUTTON.

User avatar
KBrownConsulting
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:29 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:08 am

Eric Stern wrote:
KBrownConsulting wrote:@Eric

Unless I totally misunderstand what the "Startup" option does, the logs you posted appear to confirm the issue that was reported...

The log you posted shows that after bouncing the port the switch is not waiting the 300 seconds specified as the startup period before pinging the device again. The whole point of the Startup interval (at least my understanding of it) is to give the attached device enough time to reboot after a bounce in order to prevent a boot loop!



Actually the Startup value is only used when the switch first boots, to allow time for the switch to establish full network connectivity before ping monitoring begins.

If the bounced device needs time to reboot etc you need to set the Interval high enough to allow for that. Actually as long as the device comes back up before (Interval * Failures) seconds have passed it should be ok.


Ah, Ok... Are you open to feedback on that implementation? (If this is the wrong place for that kind of discussion let me know & I can move this to a separate topic.)

I guess if I'm honest I'm actually curious if you'd be open to considering changing how the Startup option works?

I'll admit that my expectation of how the Startup option worked was based primarily on my experience with several other manufacturer's devices that have some form of ping watchdog feature, which I know is a case of :ak: but it seems like I was not alone in my assumption of how it "should work" as jschroeter (who originally reported the issue earlier in this thread) clearly was under the same impression & based on Julian's comment here it would seem like he was too.

More importantly, while I know duplicating another manufacturer's implementation simply to be the same is not a good reason to do anything, hopefully you'd agree that if the Startup option was applied both when the switch boots AND when it bounces a port, that it would make the Watchdog tool a lot more flexible. (For example, I've actually had to go back & change my Watchdog configuration on some switches to insure I don't get boot loops because I actually have a number of devices that I'd like to test every 10 seconds and reboot after 3 failures to make sure they are rebooted within 30 seconds of a problem, but that's not long enough to allow them to reboot! Shoot even 60 seconds is not enough time to allow some devices to reboot, but since the devices being pinged are directly attached to the switch that's more than enough time to establish that there's a problem with the device as I've never had the device drop multiple pings in less than 30 seconds much less 60 seconds unless it's locked up.)

Thoughts? Would you be willing to consider this? Is it even possible to make the Startup option do what I've proposed? (I'd assume it's technically possible, but... yeah.)

If you got this far, thanks for hearing me out.

User avatar
Eric Stern
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:26 pm

I'll add this to my list of things to do.

User avatar
jschroeter
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 4:52 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:03 pm

KBrownConsulting wrote:
Eric Stern wrote:
KBrownConsulting wrote:@Eric

Unless I totally misunderstand what the "Startup" option does, the logs you posted appear to confirm the issue that was reported...

The log you posted shows that after bouncing the port the switch is not waiting the 300 seconds specified as the startup period before pinging the device again. The whole point of the Startup interval (at least my understanding of it) is to give the attached device enough time to reboot after a bounce in order to prevent a boot loop!



Actually the Startup value is only used when the switch first boots, to allow time for the switch to establish full network connectivity before ping monitoring begins.

If the bounced device needs time to reboot etc you need to set the Interval high enough to allow for that. Actually as long as the device comes back up before (Interval * Failures) seconds have passed it should be ok.


Ah, Ok... Are you open to feedback on that implementation? (If this is the wrong place for that kind of discussion let me know & I can move this to a separate topic.)

I guess if I'm honest I'm actually curious if you'd be open to considering changing how the Startup option works?

I'll admit that my expectation of how the Startup option worked was based primarily on my experience with several other manufacturer's devices that have some form of ping watchdog feature, which I know is a case of :ak: but it seems like I was not alone in my assumption of how it "should work" as jschroeter (who originally reported the issue earlier in this thread) clearly was under the same impression & based on Julian's comment here it would seem like he was too.

More importantly, while I know duplicating another manufacturer's implementation simply to be the same is not a good reason to do anything, hopefully you'd agree that if the Startup option was applied both when the switch boots AND when it bounces a port, that it would make the Watchdog tool a lot more flexible. (For example, I've actually had to go back & change my Watchdog configuration on some switches to insure I don't get boot loops because I actually have a number of devices that I'd like to test every 10 seconds and reboot after 3 failures to make sure they are rebooted within 30 seconds of a problem, but that's not long enough to allow them to reboot! Shoot even 60 seconds is not enough time to allow some devices to reboot, but since the devices being pinged are directly attached to the switch that's more than enough time to establish that there's a problem with the device as I've never had the device drop multiple pings in less than 30 seconds much less 60 seconds unless it's locked up.)

Thoughts? Would you be willing to consider this? Is it even possible to make the Startup option do what I've proposed? (I'd assume it's technically possible, but... yeah.)

If you got this far, thanks for hearing me out.


So...... I kinda lost track of this.

As I understand the STARTUP VALUE to work, and how it is working in previous versions of Netonix Firmware (1.4.2) and in Ubiquiti Radios, is that the STARTUP VALUE is for anytime the Radio looses power; Eg, at switch start up, turning on the port manually, port bouncing, and a WATCHDOG bounce to avoid a boot loop. Which is what is currently happening with the 1.4.8 firmware.

User avatar
scracha
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:36 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:41 pm

Hi guys,

Following on from this post. viewtopic.php?t=2541

Ping watchdog works on port bounce (apart from already discussed misleading "startup" value). However I'm a bit confused about the action "Enable Power". How does it know what power to enable on a port (24V/24VH/48V)? I'm basically just wanting solar towers to start with reserve backhaul(s) switched off and then start them if a ping-watch fails?


Dec 6 13:19:50 switch[767]: Failure checking 172.16.4.57, watchdog triggered on port 5 (M5 Reserve BH), action is Enable Power

The above does absolutely nothing to the power. I'm guessing it's designed to work with Disable Power but there's no scenario where when a ping FAILS I'd want to disable power.

Quite happy for my NMS or netonix email to arrive telling me reserve power is on and take action accordingly.

User avatar
anvilcom
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 5:28 pm
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:09 pm

We have a WS-12-250-AC that is still running 1.3.3. Is it safe to upgrade directly to 1.4.8?

User avatar
sirhc
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 7416
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA
Has thanked: 1608 times
Been thanked: 1325 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:12 pm

anvilcom wrote:We have a WS-12-250-AC that is still running 1.3.3. Is it safe to upgrade directly to 1.4.8?


The only thing I would do is:

If it has been up a LONG time then login to the unit and do a reboot before upgrading.

If using a long password or special characters change the username and password to something short and simple as there was a bug a while back with long usernames and passwords or if special characters were used that was fixed (see release notes). After the upgrade change back to regular username and password.
Support is handled on the Forums not in Emails and PMs.
Before you ask a question use the Search function to see it has been answered before.
To do an Advanced Search click the magnifying glass in the Search Box.
To upload pictures click the Upload attachment link below the BLUE SUBMIT BUTTON.

User avatar
anvilcom
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 5:28 pm
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:22 pm

User name is admin, password is only 8 characters and no special characters. I couldn't find specifics in the release notes. Would I need to change either or are they short enough?

User avatar
sirhc
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 7416
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA
Has thanked: 1608 times
Been thanked: 1325 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:35 pm

anvilcom wrote:User name is admin, password is only 8 characters and no special characters. I couldn't find specifics in the release notes. Would I need to change either or are they short enough?


Your fine.
Support is handled on the Forums not in Emails and PMs.
Before you ask a question use the Search function to see it has been answered before.
To do an Advanced Search click the magnifying glass in the Search Box.
To upload pictures click the Upload attachment link below the BLUE SUBMIT BUTTON.

User avatar
lweidig
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:56 pm
Location: Sheboygan, WI
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: v1.4.8 Bug reports and Comments

Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:55 am

We have a LOT of these switches in our network, but one of them needed replacing due to hardware lockup. When replacing it we decided to go from 1.4.7 to 1.4.8 so that we did not have additional downtime somewhere in the future.

We are using a 2 port LAG between the switch and our Mikrotik router at the site. Nothing has changed on the router configuration, but we are now seeing an issue between the two almost all of the time where the Netonix keeps sending us messages similar to:

LACP changed state to Active on port 2 (Uplink 1) (key 100) - from netonix (10.x.x.x) .

We will get these on BOTH of the uplink ports continually once it starts generating 100's per hour. Reboot the switch and it will go away for a while.

However, even before this starts spamming out messages we are seeing issues with much higher latencies than other sites. Typically latency from core to site is 1ms. Pings to Netonix also seem to be fine. HOWEVER, any device behind the switch and things spike. We have a lot of Cambium ePMP and see typically the same 1-2ms ping times to an access point on a working switch. This jumps to 20-60 on the switch having issues with WIDE fluctuations going as high as 100's / 1000's ms at times! Pings to devices on the AP's also experience the same issues.

Looking for suggestions, including if it is safe to downgrade to 1.4.7. Thanks!

PreviousNext
Return to Hardware and software issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests