[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ether-wake won't work anymore.



Bruno Buys wrote:
Andy Hawkins wrote:
Hi,

In article <[🔎] 45FDAFBA.1060706@gmail.com>,
           Bruno Buys<bruno.grupos@gmail.com> wrote:
I´ve relied on etherwake to up remote machines, and it worked ok for quite some time. But recently I noticed it kind of stopped working. Since today I bumped two more machines which don't etherwake, I decided to see if anybody here knows something about it.
Is there any change of version, or protocol or something of this sort?
Any help is appreciated.

Not sure if it's relevant, but I've had etherwake fail occasionally. It
seemed to be related to when the machine being woken had been completely
powered off (power cut or similar). I found I hate to power it up using the button on the case, then shut it down. From then, etherwake would work just
fine.

Andy


Hi andy,
I still don't know how to fix this. Your issue seem similar to mine... The thing is, I installed a network in an office with two computers and one router. I can ssh to the router, but I'd like to, from the router, up the two machines using etherwake and then do maintenance. Otherwise I'd need to get there personally, which of course, I'd rather not. Its possible to work this way, I've done this before. The thing is, etherwake won't work with both of them. And both machines are in soft-off state (i guess thats the name), not powered on, but they light in the switch and in their eth cards, in the computer's rear cover.
I've searched the bios for any setups, packages installed, nothing appears.



Many BIOSes will only accept wake-on-LAN when powered off, not in
standby/sleep mode. Check in the BIOS, when you can get to the machine,
or find the manual on the Net, it should say which S-modes WOL works in.

Certainly the desktop and laptop I have that accept WOL will only do so
when powered off. Seems a bit silly, really, WOL would be most useful
with machines which have gone into standby through inaction.



Reply to: