Re: Netboot E250 -- tftp problem
Op 21-01-2008 om 15:43 schreef Hero_xbd!.RRR:
> Hi, everybody!
Hello,
> I am trying to install a debian-sparc system on an old Enterprise 250(E250)
> in our lab.
~
> 2. Turn on E250(in the same LAN as netboot server), Press Stop-A to get the
> OPENBOOT prompt, issue"boot net", it reads that:
> Boot device:/pci@1f,4000/network@1,1 File and Args:
> Time out waiting for ARP/RARP packet
> 4200 Data Access Error
> and throw me to the "ok" prompt again.
~
> I don't know what to do now, I have tried everything I know and everything
> I can find on the net, but still stack with this problem. Please give me
> some suggestions.
>
> Thanks in advance!
Thank YOU for the good posting! It really shows you did your part!!!
The 'Time out waiting for ARP/RARP packet' is normal,
if there was no RARP deamon responding,
there would be much more RARP Time-out messages.
But the '4200 Data Access Error' is a scary one ...
4000 is the default download start address.
4200 is start plus 200. 0x200 is 512 decimal, the size of a default TFTP packet.
How to classify 'Data Access Error' is the challenge.
If there are problems with memory, the 'ok' wouldn't probably not been
show. Just do a simple check by these five separate command at the 'ok'
prompt:
40000 400 dump
40000 400 55 fill
40000 400 dump
40000 400 AA fill
40000 400 dump
to make sure it is really no memory problem.
I see one possible cause of the probleem: Size of the TFTP packet.
I imagine that the first TFTP block is transferred fine
and the next block goes wrong, due allocated size and actual size
differences.
The wireshark analyzis could reveal it ...
[1]
Over here I do succesfull netboots on an Ultra 5, it has OpenBoot 3.19.
As tftp server is also tftpd-hpa used, under inetd. But shouldn't make
a difference. Difference is that I don't do '-r blocksize'
Cheers
Geert Stappers
DD
[1]
I'm willing to check a wireshark slash tcpdump .pcap file
that is all ready filtered to contain only packets that
match the MAC address of the E250.
You may send that binary file off-list to me.
Reply to: