Lonnie,

I've just tried re-downloading the i586 Generic image and the Via C7 
image--each is still producing the same result. For good measure, I also tried 
the AstLinux 0.7.9 (Asterisk 1.8.4.4) image, but again the same result.

Once Syslinux does finally boot into runnix, everything does work as expected. 
I was able to bring the the webpage and it was responsive. I did not try 
registering any phones yet as I ran into the problem before I started to load 
any Asteriks .conf files.

Agreed it is odd... the actual initialization process seems to be slower too.

cheers,
   Shamus

On 2011-12-22, at 5:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:53:20 -0600
> From: Lonnie Abelbeck <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Astlinux-users] runnix very slow--AstLinux 1.0.0
> To: AstLinux Users Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Shamus,
> 
> This is very weird, to me this is a 'syslinux' issue, but may be caused by a 
> corrupted download as Michael suggested.  If you normally use a c7 image, try 
> a geni685 image instead or vice versa.
> 
> Other than that, your 0.7 runnix bootloader is using syslinux 3.35, while the 
> new runnix uses syslinux 3.86.  We have been shipping syslinux 3.86 for fresh 
> 0.7 images for some time.  No reports like this.
> 
> Question, after syslinux finally boots runnix, do things work as expected 
> after that?
> 
> Very weird...  Like the clock speed is 1000x slower.
> 
> Lonnie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Shamus Rask wrote:
> 
>> I have now tried with a Transcend, Lexar and SanDisk Ultra--all 4GB, all 
>> producing the same results. Boot time is > 25m.
>> 
>> I have posted two videos to YouTube... boring I know, but may provide some 
>> intelligence? The first video is of starting to boot into AstLinux 1.0.0--I 
>> stop it after the "Loading runnix..." prompt appears. The second video is of 
>> booting into my working copy of AstLinux 0.7. There is a noticeable 
>> difference!
>> AstLinux 1.0.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GizF9Z4Znv0
>> AStLinux 0.7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd0lOpmgdW8
>> 
>> cheers,
>>   Shamus
>> 
>> 
>> On 2011-12-21, at 3:44 AM, [email protected] 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:44:27 +0100
>>> From: Michael Keuter <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Astlinux-users] runnix very slow--AstLinux 1.0.0
>>> To: AstLinux Users Mailing List <[email protected]>
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 21.12.2011 um 01:31 schrieb Shamus Rask:
>>> 
>>>> Lonnie,
>>>> 
>>>> This is on a new CF card; I've (wisely now) kept my "production" card 
>>>> safe. That being said, I've just tried two experiments to see if there 
>>>> would be any differences and eliminate some possible variables:
>>>>    ? experiment 1: using a second spare CF card of different make (Lexar 
>>>> vs. Transcend), use Mac to flash image
>>>>    ? experiment 2: try using physdiskwrite on WinXP to flash image instead 
>>>> of Mac.
>>>> 
>>>> In each case, the same result was seen--over 25m to boot.
>>>> 
>>>> I tried editing syslinux.cfg as per your suggestion and again, no 
>>>> improvement. I'm really scratching my head on this one!
>>>> 
>>>> cheers,
>>>>  Shamus
>>> 
>>> Do you have a chance to try a SanDisk CF card (I only use Ultra II cards).
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> http://www.mksolutions.info

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users

Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to 
[email protected].

Reply via email to