Description of problem: Network is not being initialized properly, preventing NFS install ... 'linux askmethod' I previously did a successful NFS install of FC4 on this machine. I categorized this as an 'anaconda' problem because it happens during install and I did not know how to properly categorize it. After selecting 'NFS image' the 'Configure TCP/IP' screen appears. Regardless of whether I pick dhcp or assign a static IP address, the network does not get initialized. I used a hub + ethereal on another machine to observe what was going on ... no packets come out the jack. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): FC5 How reproducible: 100% reproducible Steps to Reproduce: 1. Use Soyo SY-P4I865PE Plus Dragon 2 motherboard 2. boot from FC5 CD #1 3. 'linux askmethod' 4. 'NFS image' 5. with dhcp, observe that it never leaves the 'Configure TCP/IP' screen Actual results: Network does not get initialized and install cannot continue Expected results: Successful NFS installation Additional info: FC4 with latest updates is still running on the local hard drive, so I can get info about the network card if you need it.
Any interest in taking a look at this? Soon I am going to have to repurpose this equipment and will lose the chance to test with it.
I am polling once again to see if anyone wants to take a look at this ... Signed, Your faithful user
Just checking in. I am willing to do what I can to help ensure hardware compatibility. Please advise.
A new kernel update has been released (Version: 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5) based upon a new upstream kernel release. Please retest against this new kernel, as a large number of patches go into each upstream release, possibly including changes that may address this problem. This bug has been placed in NEEDINFO state. Due to the large volume of inactive bugs in bugzilla, if this bug is still in this state in two weeks time, it will be closed. Should this bug still be relevant after this period, the reporter can reopen the bug at any time. Any other users on the Cc: list of this bug can request that the bug be reopened by adding a comment to the bug. In the last few updates, some users upgrading from FC4->FC5 have reported that installing a kernel update has left their systems unbootable. If you have been affected by this problem please check you only have one version of device-mapper & lvm2 installed. See bug 207474 for further details. If this bug is a problem preventing you from installing the release this version is filed against, please see bug 169613. If this bug has been fixed, but you are now experiencing a different problem, please file a separate bug for the new problem. Thank you.
I will check this within the next day or two ... and will advise.
I don't know how to test this ... This is an installation issue, trying to install from an NFS image. The FCMETA_INSTALL but/document did not help me. Q: Is there a mechanism that I can use to test this out? Q: Can I just replace the anaconda stuff on my NFS image to determine whether or not it recognizes this NIC? Please advise.
The Fedora Unity project does respins of older releases with updated kernels etc (http://fedoraunity.org/), which may be a starting point. You might also want to give FC6 a try, to see if that works. It may have just been a case of the kernel that ended up on the FC5 media not being new enough. Other than that, I don't really know what to suggest.
Uhh ... I am not following you. It worked fine with FC4, but broke with FC5. You said: You might also want to give FC6 a try, to see if that works. Q: Are you saying that there is a test version of FC6 available for download? Q: Or are you saying that I should wait until FC6 test versions are available? (I did not find FC6 test versions on several download mirrors).
Got it ... found FC-6-Test2 on another mirror
test2 is a few months old now (it has been deprecated since by both fc6test3, and fc6pre) fc6pre can be obtained using bittorrent. Instructions are at http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/
OK ... I retrieved fc6pre through bittorrent per your instructions ... Thanks! Things are still not right with the network driver for this motherboard during the installation process. I am using ethereal to watch the network packets during the installation process. When trying to do an NFS or FTP install, I am seeing between 500 and 15K DHCP Discover and DHCP Request packets over a period of up to 71 seconds. My DHCP server is responding with DHCP ACK and DHCP Offer packets. I have upgraded the motherboard BIOS to the latest version. There seems to be no separate firmware upgrade for the onboard NIC. I am glad to try to help diagnose this problem ... just let me know what I can do. Michael
Michael, can you get FC6 installed on the box using CD/DVD or possibly a different NIC? Once it is up, can you attach the output of running "dmesg" and "lspci -n", as well as the contents of /var/log/messages? The output from "sysreport" might be even better if you have the time. Please attach at least the dmesg and lspci output as a minimum...thanks!
Will install fc6pre via CD and will get requested output. Michael
Created attachment 139062 [details] Sat 21 Oct 2006 - dmesg output after installation of fc6pre from CD
Created attachment 139063 [details] Sat 21 Oct 2006 - 'lspci -n' output after installation of fc6pre from CD
Created attachment 139064 [details] Sat 21 Oct 2006 - sysreport output after installation of fc6pre from CD
Installed from CD and created attachments as requested. Note that during the installation I tried to check off that I was going to use the system for 'Software Development'. A dialog came up and told me that I needed a NIC. I believe that it successfully identfied the NIC. I told it to configure with DHCP. System then died. After system is up and running, ifconfig only shows lo LEDs around the motherboard RJ-45 connector are lit up.
I will be travelling from Tue 24 Oct 2006 - Thu 2 Nov 2006 ... If you want more data then you need to get back to me today (Mon 23 Oct 2006)
It looks like you should be using the dmfe driver. Is it loaded? Have you tried loading it manually e.g. "modprobe dmfe"?
I did not do anything other than a default installation. I just did a 'modprobe dmfe' ... got no complaints ... but there were no visible changes. Q: what is the dmfe module? network? Q: What other steps should I take to test it?
I did the following: - reboot - observe that eth0 does not get DHCP ip addr during startup - service network stop - rmmod tulip - modprobe dmfe - service network start - observe that eth0 still does not get DHCP ip addr - confirmed that lites are on/blinking on the switch port and the NIC
This looks like it might relate to bug 191048. Could you specifically try: modprobe -r dmfe ; modprobe -r tulip ; modprobe dmfe If that gives you an eth0 but DHCP still doesn't work for you, that might be another issue. In that case, please try a static IP configuration. Does that improve the (post install) networking situation?
> This looks like it might relate to bug 191048. I agree. I googled and found someone using ubuntu Linux that was talking about confusion between tulip and davicom. > Could you specifically try: > > modprobe -r dmfe ; modprobe -r tulip ; modprobe dmfe Unfortunately, I am travelling for the next week and do not have access to the machine. This will have to wait until Fri 3 Nov 2006. Per my message above, I did: service network stop rmmod tulip modprobe dmfe service network start > If that gives you an eth0 but DHCP still doesn't work for you, that might be > another issue. In that case, please try a static IP configuration. > > Does that improve the (post install) networking situation? I will check this out on/after Fri 3 Nov 2006.
So this definately sounds like 191048, setting to NEEDINFO until reporter can confirm static ip works for him with dmfe driver
I'll get back to you as soon as I can ... on/after Fri 3 Nov 2006
Per your recommendation I tried the following: > modprobe -r dmfe ; modprobe -r tulip ; modprobe dmfe > If that gives you an eth0 but DHCP still doesn't work for you, that might be > another issue. I did not get a DHCP ip address > In that case, please try a static IP configuration. I assigned a static IP address. ifconfig did show an eth0 device. However, there was no response to 'pings'. I set up ethereal going through a hub, with filtering based upon the mac address, 'ether host 00:50:2C:A2:D2:9F'. I then went through the entire process again, rebooting, modprobe -r ..., dhcp and static IP addr. No packets ever come out of the NIC. I would suspect the NIC and/or cable, but the lights are on and it worked fine under FC4. Q: Any other things I can try/test?
yeah, I'd do the following: 1) Make sure syslog.conf is set to record kernel messages of level KERN_ERR and higher 2) follow the above procedure, but edit your modprobe.conf file to add the following line options dmfe debug=1 3) use ethtool to confirm link status on the device 4) send in the output of (3) and /var/log/messages. The debug messages that dmfe outputs should help us track down where this problem is occuring.
Followed suggestions ... bad news ... we didn't get very much data. (In reply to comment #27) > yeah, I'd do the following: > > 1) Make sure syslog.conf is set to record kernel messages of > level KERN_ERR and higher I first ran it at level kern.err We didn't get much data so I rerean it at kern.debug I didn't see very much in either one of them. > 2) follow the above procedure, but edit your modprobe.conf file to > add the following line > options dmfe debug=1 done > 3) use ethtool to confirm link status on the device Sorry to report that ethtool only says: Settings for eth0: No data available > 4) send in the output of (3) and /var/log/messages. The debug messages that > dmfe outputs should help us track down where this problem is occuring. Attached ... but it doesn't look very promising to me. Please advise.
Created attachment 140593 [details] kern.err output
Created attachment 140595 [details] kern.debug syslog ouput
Created attachment 140596 [details] output from 'ethtool eth0' ... no joy
Sorry guys ... I double-checked everything and it looks like I was mistaken. After forcing removal of the tulip and dmfe driver, then forcing load of the dmfe driver, the eth0 interface *DOES* come up. It will work either with a fixed IP addr or with a dhcp addr. Presumably that is why there were no errors reported in the kernel logs. It is the case that 'ethtool eth0' still reports 'No data available', so something must not be happy.
FWIW, dmfe simply doesn't support ethtool (other than 'ethtool -i')...
OK, Thanks. I have some more info that may not help you very much, but makes me feel better: I was feeling guilty about previously reporting that it was not working. So I tried it a few more times. It turns out that I need to go through the 'modprobe -r dme' cycle *twice* in order to get it to work. Here is my sequence of commands: #reboot the system service network stop lsmod | grep tulip modprobe -r tulip lsmod | grep tulip # observe that tulip is removed modprobe dmfe lsmod | grep dmfe service network start Bringing up interface eth0: dmfe device eth0 does not seem to be present, delaying initialization. # observe that eth0 does not work service network stop modprobe -r dmfe lsmod | grep dmfe modprobe dmfe lsmod | grep dmfe service network start # observe that eth0 comes up OK Q: Why would I need to go through the cycle *twice* in order to get it to come up? Separately: I changed my /etc/modprobe.conf to say alias eth0 dmfe Yet, when I start the system the 'tulip' driver is loaded. Q: What controls / Why is the tulip driver loaded at startup?
ping
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks. If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6, please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting the change. Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we are following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.