Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:09:04 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: "Erik U." <erik.u@dnainternet.net> Subject: Re: Mysterious 60min reboot on net4501 Message-ID: <200403170809.09729.h@schmalzbauer.de> In-Reply-To: <20040317060951.GF4991@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <200403162024.31782.h@schmalzbauer.de> <200403170653.34932.h@schmalzbauer.de> <20040317060951.GF4991@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_Vm/VAH9BfN7UX6P Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Mittwoch, 17. M=E4rz 2004 07:09 schrieb Bernd Walter: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 06:53:30AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 17. M=E4rz 2004 00:35 schrieb Bernd Walter: > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:35:58PM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > > > > Am Dienstag, 16. M=E4rz 2004 20:29 schrieb Erik U.: > > > > > Maybe something in the crontab that runs hourly and crashes your > > > > > system. > > > > > > > > Cron doesn't run at all. > > > > > > > > If it only was that simple..... > > > > > > Maybe a too small power supply - current utilizes the CPU a bit more > > > and therefor requires more power. > > > At least -current never gave me such problems with soekris boards. > > > > You are right, ther also was a problem with the power supply but I had > > replaced the old one by a 6V/2A model. I'm astonished about the 60 min > > interval. What bug could caus this? Today I'll revert all the "newies" > > like crypto hw/support aso. > > Why do you think it's a bug? > Maybe some intervall loads the CPU more than the remaining time. > The elan520 has a very load dependend power consumption. Like I wrote it now can consume up to 2A which is much more than needed=20 (mesured 810-850mA WITH HIFN, the old model only supplied 800mA) > I don't know what happens special at 60min uptime - maybe something > simple like named cache garbadge collection or so. > The hifn chip consume a lot of power independend of beeing used or not, > so removing kernel support for it won't help much. I meant removing the Card itself of course. Not because the power consumpti= on=20 but to restore the working environment. I'll find the reason......... Thank you, =2DHarry --Boundary-02=_Vm/VAH9BfN7UX6P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBAV/mVBylq0S4AzzwRAml4AJ9TV4qtzF6rZVOAjlzVgJjFIPxevwCfY4er vvchudz5kJlBJqvZGnJ1Mi0= =+YEE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Vm/VAH9BfN7UX6P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403170809.09729.h>