T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
541.1 | Old bridge firmware | QUIVER::SLAWRENCE | | Mon Dec 06 1993 17:30 | 6 |
| V1.5 is _VERY_ old DECbridge code;
My sources didn't know about any EPROM erasures problem that far back,
but there were many other problems.
Upgrade your bridge code ASAP to V3.1
|
541.2 | Good bridge, same results. | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Fri Dec 17 1993 14:48 | 32 |
|
Ok, let's try this one. This is the new bridge that field service
swapped into place for the customer. I just got it back and thought
I'd post the results. A SUN SPARC II has had its motherboard replaced
and there have been no further EPROM erasures count increments.
The question remains. How can a bad Ethernet interface send (and
what type of packets) and cause the EPROM erasure count to increment?
DECbridge> SHO BRIDGE
DECbridge 90 V1.14 08-00-2B-25-D7-11 � 1991 Digital Equipment Corp
FPROM V3.0 �1991,92 Digital Equip Corp 1-OCT-92
Bridge states:
Console owner: AA-00-04-00-66-E7 Uptime: 765.15 seconds
Bridge state: 17 Work group size: 58
Hub mgmt enable: 1 Spanning tree enable: 1
Flash ROM erasures: 65,331 Address lifetime: 450*2 sec.
Event counters:
Sys buffer unavail. errors: 0
WG size exceeded errors: 0
Spanning tree parameters:
Bridge id: FF-FF-08-00-2B-25-D7-11 Root port: 2
Designated_root: 80-00-08-00-2B-A0-F8-28 Root path cost: 10
Current Forward delay: 15, Hello interval: 2, Listen time: 20
Def. Forward delay: 15, Hello interval: 1, Listen time: 15
Topology change flag: 0 Topology change timer: 30
Bad hello limit: 15 Bad hello reset interval: 5
Epoch_mode: 3 Epoch1 who: 00-00-00-00-00-00 Mode changes: 0
Epoch 1 poll time: 18 seconds Epoch 1 response time: 15 seconds
dave
|
541.3 | | QUIVER::SLAWRENCE | | Fri Dec 17 1993 16:44 | 8 |
| That still isn't the latest, but I'll poll the local bridge gurus...
the latest is:
FPROM V3.1
...just cause you just got it, doesn't mean it hasn't been in a
warehouse for a _long_ time.
|
541.4 | New enough? | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Fri Dec 17 1993 18:25 | 11 |
| The fiber bridge is shipping with V3.1 but I think the normal DB90
is still shipping with V3.0. Or am I wrong??
Anyways I thought the only thing different was the correcting of
spanning tree problems in V3.0. Besides, they have only 2 bridges
(DB 90s) on the entire network. All the rest (Cabletron, UB) are
repeated onto the backbone.
Under what conditions would the erasure counter get incremented??
dave
|
541.5 | Before this note is forgotten... | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Wed Dec 29 1993 16:06 | 8 |
| I haven't been corrected yet (??) about V3.0 or V3.1 in the DECbridge
90. Given that it happened under V1.5 and V3.0 I'd bet dollars
to donuts that it will still happen under V3.1.
Anyways, anyone hazard a guess why and how a misbehaving SUN could
cause that counter to increment?
dave
|
541.6 | | QUIVER::SLAWRENCE | | Wed Dec 29 1993 17:33 | 2 |
| No one here has seen anything like this that I can find...
|
541.7 | Reset the counter? | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Fri Jan 07 1994 11:05 | 4 |
| Is there any way that the counter can be field reset back to a more
real number like 1?
dave
|
541.8 | No. | ROGER::GAUDET | Because the Earth is 2/3 water | Fri Jan 07 1994 13:56 | 1 |
| RE: .7 I'm afraid not.
|