This morning, after a few minutes' use of my Pi5 running Bookworm,
the WiFi connection abruptly dropped. Couldn't bring it back up,
so I rebooted the access point. No luck. Then I rebooted the Pi5
and noticed something about rfkill stopping wifi in the boot messages.
At this point the last reboot was several days past, wifi hadn't been
touched or given any trouble.
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
This morning, after a few minutes' use of my Pi5 running Bookworm,
the WiFi connection abruptly dropped. Couldn't bring it back up,
so I rebooted the access point. No luck. Then I rebooted the Pi5
and noticed something about rfkill stopping wifi in the boot messages.
At this point the last reboot was several days past, wifi hadn't been
touched or given any trouble.
The disconnect repeated after about an hour. No further references
to rfkill, but the boot messages grumble about NetworkManager....
bob@raspberrypi:~$ systemctl status NetworkManager-wait-online.service
× NetworkManager-wait-online.service - Network Manager Wait Online
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/NetworkManager-wait-online.service; en>
Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sat 2024-09-21 09:52:43 PDT; 7min>
Docs: man:nm-online(1)
Process: 866 ExecStart=/usr/bin/nm-online -s -q (code=exited, status=1/FAIL>
Main PID: 866 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
CPU: 33ms
It unclear to me if this is even relevant to the disconnect event, since
at the moment wifi is connected and working.
Anybody got a suggestion? apt update reports all up to date....
Thanks for reading
bob prohaska
Well it may be completely irrelevant Bob, but my Pi Zero 2 W issues seem
to have been solved by use of a bigger power supply.
It may be that the wifi chip is the most sensitive to inadequate voltages.
... the boot messages grumble about NetworkManager....
bob@raspberrypi:~$ systemctl status NetworkManager-wait-online.service × NetworkManager-wait-online.service - Network Manager Wait Online
Loaded: loaded
(/lib/systemd/system/NetworkManager-wait-online.service; en>
Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sat 2024-09-21 09:52:43
PDT; 7min>
Docs: man:nm-online(1)
Process: 866 ExecStart=/usr/bin/nm-online -s -q (code=exited,
status=1/FAIL>
Main PID: 866 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
CPU: 33ms
Well it may be completely irrelevant Bob, but my Pi Zero 2 W issues seem
to have been solved by use of a bigger power supply.
It may be that the wifi chip is the most sensitive to inadequate voltages.
[subject updated to reflect recent observations]
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Well it may be completely irrelevant Bob, but my Pi Zero 2 W issues seem
to have been solved by use of a bigger power supply.
It may be that the wifi chip is the most sensitive to inadequate voltages.
The wifi dropout has repeated three or four times since the initial case. Usually it dropped after an hour or so of uptime and couldn't reconnect
on its own, the Pi had to be rebooted. Haven't seen anything more about rfkill after the first incident.
I put a voltmeter on the GPIO power pins, it looks steady at 5.09-5.10 volts. The meter isn't what I'd call a precision unit, but it's likely within 50 mV, so the voltage isn't obviously wrong.
Just a few minutes ago the WiFi dropped, then came back up on its own a couple or three minutes later. Wasn't watching the voltmeter, unfortunately. I'll keep an eye peeled more carefully, perhaps it can be caught in the act.
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska
On 22/09/2024 00:53, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
[subject updated to reflect recent observations]
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The wifi dropout has repeated three or four times since the initial case.
Well it may be completely irrelevant Bob, but my Pi Zero 2 W issues seem >>> to have been solved by use of a bigger power supply.
It may be that the wifi chip is the most sensitive to inadequate voltages. >>
Usually it dropped after an hour or so of uptime and couldn't reconnect
on its own, the Pi had to be rebooted. Haven't seen anything more about
rfkill after the first incident.
I put a voltmeter on the GPIO power pins, it looks steady at 5.09-5.10 volts.
The meter isn't what I'd call a precision unit, but it's likely within 50 mV,
so the voltage isn't obviously wrong.
Mmm. if you have a scope, also check for noise.
Just a few minutes ago the WiFi dropped, then came back up on its own aThat is the sort of behaviour an 'on the edge' wifi subsystem displays.
couple or three minutes later. Wasn't watching the voltmeter, unfortunately. >> I'll keep an eye peeled more carefully, perhaps it can be caught in the act. >>
My router has 'connection time' and 'reconnection time' set to 1 hour
and 1 day.
I think that after the reconnection time is up, it wants a re-send of
the secret keys.
That is, you will, by design, get disconnected every so often,. The
issue is whether the reconnect succeeds.
Low voltage and/or local noise seem to be issues for the wifi chips in use.
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:04:06 -0000 (UTC), bp wrote:
... the boot messages grumble about NetworkManager....
bob@raspberrypi:~$ systemctl status NetworkManager-wait-online.service ×
NetworkManager-wait-online.service - Network Manager Wait Online
Loaded: loaded
(/lib/systemd/system/NetworkManager-wait-online.service; en>
Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sat 2024-09-21 09:52:43
PDT; 7min>
Docs: man:nm-online(1)
Process: 866 ExecStart=/usr/bin/nm-online -s -q (code=exited,
status=1/FAIL>
Main PID: 866 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
CPU: 33ms
I would look for more detailed error messages from NetWorkManager with journalctl. It’s having trouble with something, you need to find out what.
If I'm reading the man page correctly, the "failure" in NetworkManager
is very likely that the network isn't coming up.
Is there some way to force the Pi to not bother attempting a 5 GHz connection?
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 17:27:40 -0000 (UTC), bp wrote:
If I'm reading the man page correctly, the "failure" in NetworkManager
is very likely that the network isn't coming up.
Don’t guess. Check.
Why is still unclear.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:38:25 -0000 (UTC), bp wrote:
Why is still unclear.
You didn’t check the logs with journalctl, as I suggested?
At your prompting I did run
journalctl | grep -i wlan0 | grep -i failed
which yielded a repeating pattern of messages ending with:
Sep 22 09:32:10 raspberrypi NetworkManager[821]: <info> [1727022730.2605] device (wlan0): state change: config -> failed (reason 'no-secrets', sys-iface-state: 'managed')
Sep 22 09:32:10 raspberrypi NetworkManager[821]: <warn> [1727022730.2612] device (wlan0): Activation: failed for connection 'preconfigured'
Sep 22 09:32:10 raspberrypi NetworkManager[821]: <info> [1727022730.2614] device (wlan0): state change: failed -> disconnected (reason 'none', sys-iface-state: 'managed')
Just a wild guess, but could you have two different networks with SSID “d-link.zefox.net”, with different authentication info? So what you
are seeing is failures connecting to one and successes with the other?
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the hidden ESSID entries represent.
On 24/09/2024 16:25, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the hidden ESSID entries represent.
Men In Black outside your door in black Crown Vic cars?
Though note that journalctl has its own filtering options
On 24/09/2024 16:25, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the hidden
ESSID entries represent.
Men In Black outside your door in black Crown Vic cars?
On 24/09/2024 02:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Though note that journalctl has its own filtering options
Yes, throw away everything you've ever learnt on Linux, and bow to the
will of Poettering.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 21:13:29 +0100, druck wrote:
On 24/09/2024 02:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Though note that journalctl has its own filtering options
Yes, throw away everything you've ever learnt on Linux, and bow to the
will of Poettering.
systemd myth number 20: “systemd makes it impossible to run syslog”.
On 24/09/2024 16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I was amazed sitting in an airport to notice 'amandasIPhone'...
On 24/09/2024 16:25, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the
hidden ESSID entries represent.
Men In Black outside your door in black Crown Vic cars?
Possibly, but could be things like Amazon Firesticks. I got quite
concerned when a couple of hidden ESSIDs with fairly high strength on
the channel I was using followed me around when I switched channels on
the router. But I then tracked it down to the couple of Firesticks on
the non smart TVs, I've no idea why they do this though.
---druck
On 24/09/2024 21:19, druck wrote:
On 24/09/2024 16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I was amazed sitting in an airport to notice 'amandasIPhone'...
On 24/09/2024 16:25, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:Possibly, but could be things like Amazon Firesticks. I got quite
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the
hidden ESSID entries represent.
concerned when a couple of hidden ESSIDs with fairly high strength on
the channel I was using followed me around when I switched channels on
the router. But I then tracked it down to the couple of Firesticks on
the non smart TVs, I've no idea why they do this though.
On 25/09/2024 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2024 21:19, druck wrote:
On 24/09/2024 16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I was amazed sitting in an airport to notice 'amandasIPhone'...
On 24/09/2024 16:25, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:Possibly, but could be things like Amazon Firesticks. I got quite
These entries change every few scans, and I don't know what the
hidden ESSID entries represent.
concerned when a couple of hidden ESSIDs with fairly high strength on
the channel I was using followed me around when I switched channels
on the router. But I then tracked it down to the couple of Firesticks
on the non smart TVs, I've no idea why they do this though.
That's just someone with network sharing on their phone.
---druck--
On 24/09/2024 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 21:13:29 +0100, druck wrote:No, you can run rsyslog, what you can't do is only run rsyslog and get
On 24/09/2024 02:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Though note that journalctl has its own filtering options
Yes, throw away everything you've ever learnt on Linux, and bow to the
will of Poettering.
systemd myth number 20: “systemd makes it impossible to run syslog”.
rid of journald.
This morning, after a few minutes' use of my Pi5 running Bookworm,
the WiFi connection abruptly dropped. Couldn't bring it back up,
so I rebooted the access point. No luck. Then I rebooted the Pi5
and noticed something about rfkill stopping wifi in the boot messages.
At this point the last reboot was several days past, wifi hadn't been
touched or given any trouble.
Went to raspi-config and rebuilt all of the locales, still couldn't
connect. Finally I opened the system preferences and set locales,
which were already correct according to the selections shown.
The machine then proceeded to work normally, as I write this.
I've had trouble before with rfkill turning on out of the blue,
but hadn't seen the problem for a month or two and thought it
resolved.
Is this a widespread problem, and is there a fix? The fact that
it happened days after the most recent reboot seems very strange.
During my attempt to run bookworm over the last 3 months I had the
problem of the wifi dropping as well.
Couldn't be arsed to find out why. Real life gets in the way.
My Hammer / nut solution is run a cron job every 5 min.
If I can't ping the router then sleep 10
If I still can't ping the router sleep 20
If I still can't ping the router sleep 30
If I still can't ping the router reboot.
I suspect this won't help you but all my pi zeroes are headless and this does (did) work. See my bookworm resolution in the other thread.
Getting to the bottom of the problem is the best thing to do.
On 26/09/2024 10:00, nev young wrote:
During my attempt to run bookworm over the last 3 months I had theThis is a very poor solution. If you must do an automatic reboot when network connectivity fails, install and configure the watchdog package.
problem of the wifi dropping as well.
Couldn't be arsed to find out why. Real life gets in the way.
My Hammer / nut solution is run a cron job every 5 min.
If I can't ping the router then sleep 10
If I still can't ping the router sleep 20
If I still can't ping the router sleep 30
If I still can't ping the router reboot.
I suspect this won't help you but all my pi zeroes are headless and
this does (did) work. See my bookworm resolution in the other thread.
Getting to the bottom of the problem is the best thing to do.
---druk
On 26/09/2024 21:25, druck wrote:
On 26/09/2024 10:00, nev young wrote:
During my attempt to run bookworm over the last 3 months I had theThis is a very poor solution. If you must do an automatic reboot when
problem of the wifi dropping as well.
Couldn't be arsed to find out why. Real life gets in the way.
My Hammer / nut solution is run a cron job every 5 min.
If I can't ping the router then sleep 10
If I still can't ping the router sleep 20
If I still can't ping the router sleep 30
If I still can't ping the router reboot.
I suspect this won't help you but all my pi zeroes are headless and
this does (did) work. See my bookworm resolution in the other thread.
network connectivity fails, install and configure the watchdog package.
Getting to the bottom of the problem is the best thing to do.
---druk
Apropos that, since the more powerful power supply, my Bookworm on the
PXZW has been rock solid on Wifi.
On 26/09/2024 10:00, nev young wrote:
During my attempt to run bookworm over the last 3 months I had theThis is a very poor solution. If you must do an automatic reboot when network connectivity fails, install and configure the watchdog package.
problem of the wifi dropping as well.
Couldn't be arsed to find out why. Real life gets in the way.
My Hammer / nut solution is run a cron job every 5 min.
If I can't ping the router then sleep 10
If I still can't ping the router sleep 20
If I still can't ping the router sleep 30
If I still can't ping the router reboot.
I suspect this won't help you but all my pi zeroes are headless and
this does (did) work. See my bookworm resolution in the other thread.
Getting to the bottom of the problem is the best thing to do.I'm happy to just accept that someone somewhere sometime fscked up and
---druk--
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:25:40 +0100, druck wrote:
Getting to the bottom of the problem is the best thing to do.
“Have you tried turning it off and on again?” is something they do in the Windows world, we try to avoid that in the Linux world.
Then I realised we're only 3 months from being 1/4 the way
through it. 2025 already!
Where did the time go and why didn't I enjoy it more?
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:55:48 +0100, nev young wrote:
Then I realised we're only 3 months from being 1/4 the way
through it. 2025 already!
Yeah. The 21st century began in 2000. Don’t listen to those who try
to say it didn’t start until 2001.
This morning, after a few minutes' use of my Pi5 running Bookworm,
the WiFi connection abruptly dropped. Couldn't bring it back up,
so I rebooted the access point. No luck. Then I rebooted the Pi5
and noticed something about rfkill stopping wifi in the boot messages.
At this point the last reboot was several days past, wifi hadn't been
touched or given any trouble.
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
This morning, after a few minutes' use of my Pi5 running Bookworm,
the WiFi connection abruptly dropped. Couldn't bring it back up,
so I rebooted the access point. No luck. Then I rebooted the Pi5
and noticed something about rfkill stopping wifi in the boot messages.
At this point the last reboot was several days past, wifi hadn't been
touched or given any trouble.
do you have NTP configured and do you have networkmanager in use?
If not get them running and see if it solved the issues.
(been there seen it all)
BR
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 23:05 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:55:48 +0100, nev young wrote:
Then I realised we're only 3 months from being 1/4 the way
through it. 2025 already!
Yeah. The 21st century began in 2000. Don’t listen to those who try
to say it didn’t start until 2001.
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the year
1. :-p
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
On 2024-09-28, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 23:05 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:55:48 +0100, nev young wrote:
Then I realised we're only 3 months from being 1/4 the way
through it. 2025 already!
Yeah. The 21st century began in 2000. Don’t listen to those who
try to say it didn’t start until 2001.
It goes from 1 to 100 for the first century. Then 101 to 200.There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year
1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or
100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or
100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
I dont think anyone was counting then
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
I dont think anyone was counting then
In message <vde54u$27ol9$2@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
Which century was that, then?
In message <vde54u$27ol9$2@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on which
century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or
100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
Which century was that, then?
David
On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or
100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
I dont think anyone was counting then
One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least century is, I know there was one.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:
One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least
century is, I know there was one.
Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.
All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is less real-world need to deal with negative time points.
On 9/30/24 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
No they aren't, precisely because the don't have a least integer.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:
One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the
least century is, I know there was one.
Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.
Perhaps you are confusing having a total ordering with well ordered?
All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is
less real-world need to deal with negative time points.
That is basically what well-ordered implies. Obviously I was
bullshitting as I have no idea if time is totally-ordered, let alone
well ordered :-).
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:16:21 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 9/30/24 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
No they aren't, precisely because the don't have a least integer.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:
One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the
least century is, I know there was one.
Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.
Perhaps you are confusing having a total ordering with well ordered?
You were the one who used the term “well ordered”, and then said that, because of this, there had to be a least century.
All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is
less real-world need to deal with negative time points.
That is basically what well-ordered implies. Obviously I was
bullshitting as I have no idea if time is totally-ordered, let alone
well ordered :-).
Einstein’s Special Relativity says time is not totally ordered, unfortunately ...
The joke was meant to be that it is totally unreasonable to assume that
time did start with the big bang and that it was a stupid special case anyway.
On 9/30/24 19:15, David Higton wrote:
In message <vde54u$27ol9$2@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on which
century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
Which century was that, then?
David
One assumes
time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least--
century is, I know there was one.
On 9/30/24 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
I dont think anyone was counting then
Nonsense, lots going on in that first century. Particularly the first
few minutes.
<https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html>--
On 30/09/2024 22:48, Pancho wrote:
On 9/30/24 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the >>>>>>> year 1. :-p
So how many years are there in a century? Does it depend on
which century it is?
No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).
What about the century containing the Big Bang?
I dont think anyone was counting then
Nonsense, lots going on in that first century. Particularly the first
few minutes.
What has that got to do with the fact that no one was counting, then?
<https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html>
What has that got to do with the fact that no one was counting, then?
| Sysop: | Steven Bennett |
|---|---|
| Location: | Phenix City, AL |
| Users: | 210 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 37:59:53 |
| Calls: | 9,200 |
| Files: | 5,625 |
| Messages: | 45,868 |