P314 keeps rebooting after v3,5 update. - ZyXEL (2024)

Liquid Lion
Liquid Lion
join:2001-08-19

Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-13 2:51 pm

I just updated my p314 to v3.5 and my router keeps rebooting itself when I browse the net for about 15 minutes. Also, the download speed is extremely slow. I reverted back to v3.25 and everything works fine. I'm not sure if I updated the firmware incorrectly. I used the serial port to upload the firmware and then the romfile. Should I upload the romfile first and then the firmware?

Finally, this is the first time I'm using the serial port to update the firmware, please elaborate what commands I need input in Hyperterminal.

Thanks.

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 2:51 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-13 3:03 pm

said by Liquid Lion:
I just updated my p314 to v3.5 and my router keeps rebooting itself when I browse the net for about 15 minutes. Also, the download speed is extremely slow.

There's different "v3.5" versions. The latest is V3.50(CA.2) 03/24/2003. It that what you tried? The previous 3.50 version had a high latency issue that slowed things down, however the latest release fixed that. My speeds are good.

I used the FTP mechanism to upload the firmware and have used the web interface in the past. Both methods are much quicker than the serial port--which I think is more for recovery of failed updates.

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 3:03 pm ·

vynce to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-13 3:24 pm

I have this same problem with my P314. It worked fine with P310 v3.50(M.01) firmware, but when I upgraded to P314 v3.50(CA.2) the CPU usage went crazy. It is not caused by the NAT table being full - the problem exists even with a few connections. I have all filtering and logging off. The slowness is caused by high CPU usage, but I can't figure out what is making the CPU usage so high. Sometimes the router even crashes and reboots itself. Here is a memory dump from when it happened a few minutes ago:

RTOS Error -20, Address 26f94
rassys.c:668 sysreset()

r0= 0x00025EE0 r1= 0x0001FFC0 r2= 0x00000040 r3= 0x003196CC
r4= 0x0000029C r5= 0x00025F04 r6= 0x003196B4 r7= 0x001DC7D8
r8= 0x00025EE0 r9= 0x00319828 r10=0x0031982C fp= 0x00319724
r12=0x003196B4 sp= 0x003196B4 lr= 0x00025D8C pc= 0x000200F4

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F

3196b0: 00 02 3d 74 72 61 73 73 79 73 2e 63 3a 36 36 38 ..=trassys.c:668
3196c0: 20 73 79 73 72 65 73 65 74 28 29 0a 00 00 00 01 sysreset().....
3196d0: ff ff ff ff 20 00 00 13 00 00 00 00 07 ff d0 00 .... ...........
3196e0: 00 00 00 40 00 31 97 49 ff ff ff ec 00 02 6f 94 ...@.1.I......o.
3196f0: 00 00 00 00 ff ff ff ec 00 31 97 24 00 31 97 28 .........1.$.1.(
319700: 00 31 97 4a ff ff ff ec 00 02 6f 94 00 00 00 00 .1.J......o.....
319710: 00 00 05 dc 00 3b df 50 00 31 97 8c 00 31 97 28 .....;.P.1...1.(
319720: 00 02 5e e0 00 02 5d 40 0d 0a 52 54 4f 53 20 45 ..^...]@..RTOS E
319730: 72 72 6f 72 20 2d 32 30 2c 20 41 64 64 72 65 73 rror -20, Addres
319740: 73 20 32 36 66 39 34 0d 0a 00 97 cc 00 31 97 80 s 26f94......1..
319750: 00 31 97 5c 00 03 ef 04 00 1d 6c f8 00 16 9f 48 .1.\......l....H
319760: 00 08 1f 88 00 1d 6c f8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ......l.........
319770: 00 00 05 dc 00 3b df 50 00 1d 6c f8 00 00 00 00 .....;.P..l.....
319780: 00 31 97 c0 00 31 97 90 00 02 6f 94 00 02 5e 94 .1...1....o...^.
319790: 00 08 1f 88 00 00 00 00 00 08 1d 84 00 00 00 00 ................
3197a0: 00 31 98 38 00 3b 86 54 ff ff ff ff 00 31 98 38 .1.8.;.T.....1.8
3197b0: 00 3b 86 54 00 31 98 18 00 31 97 c4 00 08 1f 88 .;.T.1...1......

The problems are similar to those described in this thread: »Zywall and CPU

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 3:24 pm ·

Liquid Lion
Liquid Lion
join:2001-08-19

Liquid Lion to StuartMW

Member

2003-Apr-13 3:44 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 3:44 pm ·

Liquid Lion to vynce

Member

2003-Apr-13 3:47 pm

said by vynce:I have this same problem with my P314. It worked fine with P310 v3.50(M.01) firmware, but when I upgraded to P314 v3.50(CA.2) the CPU usage went crazy. It is not caused by the NAT table being full - the problem exists even with a few connections. I have all filtering and logging off. The slowness is caused by high CPU usage, but I can't figure out what is making the CPU usage so high. Sometimes the router even crashes and reboots itself. Here is a memory dump from when it happened a few minutes ago:

RTOS Error -20, Address 26f94
rassys.c:668 sysreset()

I believe this is what's happening to me and is causing my router to reboot.

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 3:47 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-13 3:52 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 3:52 pm ·

vynce to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-13 4:10 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 4:10 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-13 4:25 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-13 4:25 pm ·

vynce to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-15 4:24 pm

I emailed Zyxel support and got a reply basically saying that they have been able to recreate the problem and it should be fixed in the next firmware release. They also said that I should just use v3.25 till then.

[rant]
This kinda sucks. All the firmware released for the P314 since v3.25 has had something pretty majorly wrong with it (300ms+ pings, high cpu usage) - 3.25 was released about a year and a half ago! What is the point of having such a long, "thorough," beta testing period when problems like this keep appearing in the final releases of the firmware.
[/rant]

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 4:24 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-15 6:10 pm

said by vynce:
[rant]
This kinda sucks.
[/rant]

I have to agree there. Perhaps they only have a few people handling firmware for all their products. Being a firmware engineer myself I understand that ... or did when I had a job.

I'm curious to know why my P314 seems to be working fine. I checked the CPU usage and it was low while not doing anything, and my speeds have not altered significantly.

As far as going back to a previous version, I'd use V3.50(M.00)O0 since that was very stable. I have a copy if you want it (ZyXEL pulled it from their site many moons ago).

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 6:10 pm ·

Bill_MI to vynce

MVM

2003-Apr-15 6:24 pm

I can second Stuart's idea about V3.50(M.00) which was released for the P310 then pulled. I'm also running this and, because of this thread, have little interest in V3.50(CA.2) now.

Why I like V3.50(M.00):
System up Time: 1458:16:31 (that's over 60 days)
(from menu 24.1)

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 6:24 pm ·

wave_sailor
join:2001-04-23
united state

wave_sailor

Member

2003-Apr-15 7:01 pm

No problems here V3.50(CA.2) | 03/24/2003

System up Time 139:47:39

sys cpu disp

sec ticks util sec ticks util sec ticks util sec ticks util
0 200829 4.16 1 203301 2.98 2 203753 2.77 3 207051 1.19
4 196543 6.21 5 202265 3.48 6 202267 3.48 7 202472 3.38
8 201282 3.95 9 202662 3.29 10 202904 3.17 11 202546 3.34
12 202882 3.18 13 202881 3.18 14 202032 3.59 15 202624 3.31
16 202281 3.47 17 202660 3.29 18 202350 3.44 19 202788 3.23

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 7:01 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-15 7:43 pm

said by wave_sailor:
No problems here V3.50(CA.2) | 03/24/2003
System up Time 139:47:39

Hmmm, 2 good and two bad. I wonder if its some configuration issue. I'm using DHCP (no PPOE here yet ). What about you guys?

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 7:43 pm ·

vynce to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-15 9:12 pm

I'm using DHCP with cable service. No filters or logging. Is there anything else that checks lots of packets or monitors connections? I'm going to try fiddling with it later this week/end. Maybe I can narrow down the problem.

I have gone back to v3.50(M.01) which is what I have been using for the last few months - seems to work ok, but it doesn't have the 'ip nat timeout' settings.

· actions · 2003-Apr-15 9:12 pm ·

switchman
join:1999-11-06

switchman to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-16 7:29 pm

How new is each system. What I am wondering is if it relates to the protection that they put in that keeps it from being loaded on rebranded boxes. If the boxes that it works on are newer, it may be related to some ID feature they may have not been in the older boxes.

This is just a thought.

· actions · 2003-Apr-16 7:29 pm ·

vynce to Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-16 9:30 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-16 9:30 pm ·

Liquid Lion
Liquid Lion
join:2001-08-19

Liquid Lion

Member

2003-Apr-16 10:08 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-16 10:08 pm ·

StuartMW to switchman

Premium Member

2003-Apr-17 9:09 am

I bought mine in July 2002.

Bootbase 2.05 5/30/2001 10:03:34

· actions · 2003-Apr-17 9:09 am ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-17 3:37 pm

FYI I've gone back to V3.50(M.00)O0 as of this morning due to some minor issues not discussed in this thread. When I did so my PC's could not get LAN IPs via the P314s DHCP server and I had to load the default V3.50(M.00)O0 rom-0 to get things working again. I was later able to retrieve and restore my custom V3.50(M.00)O0 config (I'd overwritten the local backup copy of rom-0 I had with one saved from V3.50(CA.2))--tape backups are *good* From this it would appear as though the config's of the two versions are incompatible. My guess therefore is that there's something in the NVRAM (non-volatile RAM) that is *not* cleared out by loading the default V3.50(CA.2) rom-0. Either that or V3.50(CA.2) has some issue with Bootbase 1.05 (I have 2.05).

Unfortunately ZyXEL is unlikely to fix the firmware anytime soon. It took six months for V3.50(CA.2) to be released and as we know it wasn't tested very well. If you really need/want 'ip nat timeout' its probably best to put the P314 and eBay and buy another router.

· actions · 2003-Apr-17 3:37 pm ·

wave_sailor
join:2001-04-23
united state

wave_sailor to switchman

Member

2003-Apr-17 6:05 pm

ZyNOS version: V3.50(CA.2) | 03/24/2003
romRasSize: 1010970
system up time: 23:27:25 (80da54 ticks)
bootbase version: V1.05 | 4/14/2000

Menu 2 - WAN Setup

MAC Address:
Assigned By= IP address attached on LAN
IP Address= 192.168.1.40

Menu 3.2 - TCP/IP and DHCP Ethernet Setup

DHCP= Server
Configuration:
Client IP Pool Starting Address= 192.168.1.50
Size of Client IP Pool= 32
Primary DNS Server= 0.0.0.0
Secondary DNS Server= 0.0.0.0
DHCP Server Address= N/A

TCP/IP Setup:
IP Address= 192.168.1.1
IP Subnet Mask= 255.255.255.0
RIP Direction= Both
Version= RIP-1
Multicast= None
Edit IP Alias= No

Press ENTER to Confirm or ESC to Cancel:

Menu 4 - Internet Access Setup

ISP's Name= ChangeMe
Encapsulation= Ethernet
Service Type= Standard
My Login= N/A
My Password= N/A
Login Server IP= N/A

IP Address Assignment= Dynamic
IP Address= N/A
IP Subnet Mask= N/A
Gateway IP Address= N/A
Network Address Translation= SUA Only

Menu 15.2 - NAT Server Setup

Rule Start Port No. End Port No. IP Address
---------------------------------------------------
1. Default Default 0.0.0.0
2. 3290 3290 192.168.1.40
3. 3782 3782 192.168.1.40
4. 6809 6809 192.168.1.40
5. 0 0 0.0.0.0
6. 0 0 0.0.0.0
7. 0 0 0.0.0.0
8. 0 0 0.0.0.0
9. 0 0 0.0.0.0
10. 0 0 0.0.0.0
11. 0 0 0.0.0.0
12. 1026 1026 RR Reserved

· actions · 2003-Apr-17 6:05 pm ·

StuartMW to vynce

Premium Member

2003-Apr-17 9:49 pm

said by vynce:
... and it should be fixed in the next firmware release.

Very unlikely that'll be the case as of today.

»Four Routers Being Phased Out in May

· actions · 2003-Apr-17 9:49 pm ·

vynce

Member

2003-Apr-17 11:07 pm

AAARRRGGG!

I wish they would just release one last working firmware.

I have done some testing and it seems like this problem is connection related, not bandwidth related. Downloading at high speeds barely affects the CPU usage, but making several connections at once (web pages, p2p, etc.) sends it to 100% right away. I'm not sure if it is the making of the connections that causes the problem or if it is simply related to several connections existing.

I have the following versions of v3.50 firmware: M.00, M.01, M.02, CA.1, CA.2. Am I missing any? Which one seems to have the least problems? CA.1 had the +300ms ping problem. CA.2 has the high CPU usage problem. I think M.00 had a problem with the second DNS entry being duplicated in the DHCP server field or something like that. I have been using M.01 for the last few months and it seems to be ok. I'm giving M.02 a try now.

[text was edited by author 2003-04-17 23:32:39]

· actions · 2003-Apr-17 11:07 pm ·

StuartMW

Premium Member

2003-Apr-18 7:52 am

said by vynce:
I think M.00 had a problem with the second DNS entry being duplicated in the DHCP server field or something like that.

I thought that was M.01. I'm running M.00 again, which is what I've been running for the last year. As far as I know that was the last seemingly bug free version. Bill_M (see post above) agrees with that.

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 7:52 am ·

wave_sailor
join:2001-04-23
united state

wave_sailor to vynce

Member

2003-Apr-18 12:07 pm

said by vynce:AAARRRGGG!

I wish they would just release one last working firmware.

I have done some testing and it seems like this problem is connection related, not bandwidth related. Downloading at high speeds barely affects the CPU usage, but making several connections at once (web pages, p2p, etc.) sends it to 100% right away. I'm not sure if it is the making of the connections that causes the problem or if it is simply related to several connections existing.

Good info, I will try multiple connections tonight and let you know the results. (6 hours from now)

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 12:07 pm ·

Blaster27
@bb.online.no

Blaster27 to Liquid Lion

Anon

2003-Apr-18 12:36 pm

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 12:36 pm ·

vynce to StuartMW

Member

2003-Apr-18 4:42 pm

said by StuartMW:I thought that was M.01. I'm running M.00 again, which is what I've been running for the last year. As far as I know that was the last seemingly bug free version.

You might be right, I don't remember which version had the problem and the forum search doesn't exactly work well so it will be hard to find those old posts. Anyway, I looked at the changelogs for M.02, M.01, and M.00. M.02 and M.01 are virtually identical, M.02 just has a protection mechanism to stop it being used on the Netgear variations of the Prestige. M.01 has a few improvements over M.00, but I don't remember which one (if either) had the problem mentioned above.

BTW, does anyone have v3.50(CA.0)?

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 4:42 pm ·

wave_sailor
join:2001-04-23
united state

wave_sailor to vynce

Member

2003-Apr-18 8:19 pm

the ftp1.optonline.net was running around 670kbps down. In telnet 24.1 it was running a high of RX B/S 828946

baseline 209559 ticks
sec ticks util sec ticks util sec ticks util sec ticks util
0 57101 72.77 1 72798 65.27 2 1653 99.23 3 9435 95.52
4 1521 99.30 5 19409 90.76 6 13600 93.53 7 42319 79.82
8 40503 80.69 9 17469 91.68 10 8164 96.13 11 15373 92.69
12 35767 82.95 13 20393 90.29 14 51990 75.21 15 49129 76.57
16 28128 86.60 17 47083 77.55 18 2360 98.90 19 14673 93.02
20 9679 95.40 21 55922 73.33 22 2422 98.87 23 9862 95.32
24 5361 97.46 25 28420 86.46 26 19184 90.87 27 5272 97.51
28 11512 94.53 29 20732 90.13 30 21042 89.98 31 8228 96.10
32 6460 96.94 33 913 99.59 34 17011 91.90 35 5801 97.25
36 3646 98.28 37 6782 96.79 38 29016 86.17 39 49416 76.44
40 15801 92.48 41 0 100.02 42 13722 93.47 43 1323 99.39
[text was edited by author 2003-04-18 20:20:00]

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 8:19 pm ·

Bill_MI to vynce

MVM

2003-Apr-18 9:27 pm

said by vynce:BTW, does anyone have v3.50(CA.0)?

I missed that one entirely - and I keep everything I find.

Vince, for the record I don't know of issues with 3.50(M.00). I use the loopback and DynDNS features.

3.50(M.01)
»DHCP issues with 3.50(M.01) firmware for P310/314
»Another apparent problem with 3.50(M.01)

3.50(M.02)
»ZyXEL P310 new public released ZyNOS v3.50(M.02)

3.50(CA.1)
»ZyXEL P314 new public released ZyNOS v3.50(CA.1)

3.50(CA.2) is now upon us.

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 9:27 pm ·

StuartMW to vynce

Premium Member

2003-Apr-18 10:07 pm

said by vynce:
BTW, does anyone have v3.50(CA.0)?

Following on from what Bill_M said (and thanks to Bill for the great info) I suspect that v3.50(CA.0) was never publicly released. It was probably an internal "release candidate", rejected by QC due to some issue, and they went on to release v3.50(CA.1). Version numbers are not necessarily incremental.

· actions · 2003-Apr-18 10:07 pm ·

vynce

Member

2003-Apr-19 12:12 am

· actions · 2003-Apr-19 12:12 am ·