35 messages in com.redhat.fedora-listRe: Problem booting after Yum update ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Min ChenNov 27, 2005 4:00 pm 
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)Nov 27, 2005 5:28 pm 
Michael A. PetersNov 27, 2005 6:41 pm 
Min ChenNov 27, 2005 7:04 pm 
Min ChenNov 27, 2005 7:15 pm 
Rey CruzNov 27, 2005 7:31 pm 
Sam VarshavchikNov 27, 2005 7:42 pm 
Neil CherryNov 27, 2005 8:58 pm 
Min ChenNov 27, 2005 9:10 pm 
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)Nov 27, 2005 9:26 pm 
Min ChenNov 27, 2005 9:46 pm 
Michael A. PetersNov 28, 2005 12:17 am 
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)Nov 28, 2005 4:53 am 
John SummerfiedNov 28, 2005 5:35 am 
Charles E "Rick" Taylor IVNov 28, 2005 6:41 am 
Hans MüllerNov 28, 2005 8:46 am 
Neil CherryNov 28, 2005 5:10 pm 
John SummerfiedNov 28, 2005 9:36 pm 
Min ChenDec 1, 2005 3:32 pm 
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)Dec 1, 2005 6:16 pm 
Min ChenDec 1, 2005 9:25 pm 
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)Dec 1, 2005 10:04 pm 
Tony FosterDec 1, 2005 11:09 pm 
Min ChenDec 3, 2005 10:36 pm 
Hans MüllerDec 4, 2005 12:49 am 
James WilkinsonDec 5, 2005 1:26 pm 
Tony FosterDec 5, 2005 4:15 pm 
TimDec 6, 2005 4:10 am 
James WilkinsonDec 8, 2005 12:20 am 
TimDec 8, 2005 7:59 am 
Mike McCartyDec 8, 2005 8:37 am 
Tony FosterDec 8, 2005 9:20 am 
James WilkinsonDec 8, 2005 9:37 am 
Mike McCartyDec 8, 2005 11:03 am 
TimDec 9, 2005 2:51 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: Problem booting after Yum update of FC4Actions...
From:Mike McCarty (mike@sbcglobal.net)
Date:Dec 8, 2005 8:37:19 am
List:com.redhat.fedora-list

Tim wrote:

someone suggested:

Try "ping google.com" for several hours, and see how many packets you drop.

Tim:

I hope you don't mean continuously. That would constitute abuse.

James Wilkinson:

That's a fairly harsh definition of abuse you've got.

It fits mine. It's not an attack, but it is an abuse. Having a ping test for 30 sec or so probably wouldn't bother anyone, but running it "for several hours" would sure fit my definition of "abuse".

They've made the ping service available in the same way as they make the HTTP service available. Accessing Google's web pages once a second would not be OTT for a suitably busy site.

What makes you think that Google has provided you with a ping responder?

Exactly, right on the mark, correct.

[snip continuous pinging sometimes necessary]

Fair enough, but do such things with the consent of the equipment owners. If you're testing your equipment, do so against someone that doesn't mind it.

Yep. Or buy your own.

This guy sounds like "it doesn't matter that I broke into the car repair shop and used the tools there, because I put them all back when I was through with them."

I suggest this: do you have a router? Try pinging that. I use a router between my DSL modem and my machine. It responds to pings. So does my DSL modem, for that matter.

$ ping dslmodem PING dslmodem (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from dslmodem (192.168.0.1): icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=2.60 ms 64 bytes from dslmodem (192.168.0.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.26 ms 64 bytes from dslmodem (192.168.0.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=1.19 ms

--- dslmodem ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.194/1.689/2.606/0.649 ms, pipe 2

$ ping router PING router (172.17.100.199) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=0 ttl=127 time=0.562 ms 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=1 ttl=127 time=0.579 ms 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=2 ttl=127 time=0.569 ms 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=3 ttl=127 time=0.570 ms 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=4 ttl=127 time=0.571 ms 64 bytes from router (172.17.100.199): icmp_seq=5 ttl=127 time=0.565 ms

--- router ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 4999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.562/0.569/0.579/0.020 ms, pipe 2

[snip]

Mike