[Rack] Internet is borked
jim at well.com
Tue Oct 26 18:23:38 UTC 2010
i hadn't seen it, i tho't y'all were referring
to a different network wiki page.
i think it's a start. what it doesn't address
is the "physical layer", i.e. if i can ping this
or that, okay, and if not, what do i do? restarting
the right machine is often a good fix. knowing i
don't know enough to restart a server is at least
so where, physically, are the access points,
and what do they look like? i can see an antenna,
but the cables are enough of a rat's nest that i
can't trace from the antenna to the driver. if i
find the driver, would it help to bounce it? what's
driving the driver? some computer, but the rat's
nest makes it hard to trace the cable from the
driver to the computer. if i find the computer, do
i just pull the plug? if not, a warning not to
along with a reason why not will help. if not,
then how to log on to that computer? and once
logged on, what to do? assuming an account with
proper privileges, is there a particular daemon
process to restart? is there some diagnostic
command that will return useful info (e.g. top
might show that there's some process that's taken
over the cpu; ping might show the box can't talk
to stuff "out there"...). and if logging on is
possible, where's the shit? (display and keyboard)
and so on.
and given the above, i'm up for reorganizing
the equipment so's to un-rat's-nest it all, even
to buying some kind of trough or cable channels,
put connectors on cables so's to have cables of
the right length....
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 09:23 -0700, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> jim wrote, On 20101025 200111:
> > what i think would be good is a document that
> > focuses only on common "internet is down" problems,
> > written for people who are intelligent and ignorant
> > about techie stuff but want to get the internet
> > back up, in the format of
> > * name the problem.
> > -- describe the things to test, in order, in terms
> > of the physical stuff they can see and touch.
> > * name a different problem.
> > -- describe....
> > (see attached example).
> Jim, have you actually looked at this page?
> If you haven't, please check it out. If you have and are simply stating
> it would work better as a flow chart for retards, great! Make it so! :)
More information about the Rack