Search Results

Search found 478 results on 20 pages for 'owb facts'.

Page 20/20 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 

  • PC powers off at random times

    - by Timo Huovinen
    Short Version After experiencing some problems with Mobo batteries my PC started to power off at random times, the power off is instant and sudden and does not restart afterwards, need help figuring out the cause. Facts: Powers off when PC is playing games Powers off when PC is idle Powers off when PC is in safe mode Powers off when PC is in BIOS Powers off when PC is booted through a Windows installation USB Replaced the motherboard battery several times Replaced the 650W PSU with a 750W PSU Replaced the RAM Swapped the RAM between slots Re-applied thermal paste to the CPU Checked if the motherboard touches the case Nothing is overclocked PC Specs PC specs: OS: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 RAM: klingston 1333MHz 4GB stick CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 955 Mobo: Gigabyte 88GMA-UD2H rev 2.2 Motherboard battery: CR2032 3v HDD: 500GB Seagate ST3500418AS ATA Device Graphics: ATI/AMD Radeon HD 6870 Very Long version Around 10 months ago I built a brand new gaming PC. Around 6 months ago it's time setting in windows started resetting to the year 2010. I swapped the Motherboard battery for a new one of the exact same size and shape and voltage, and the problems disappeared...for around 2 weeks. Then the same problem happened again, time gets reset, I swapped the battery again, and the problem was gone for good and everything was great for about 3 months.. then another problem started happening, the PC started to power off suddenly and without warning at completely random times, sometimes the PC works for and hour, sometimes 5 minutes. So I read on the forums that it might be either the PSU or the motherboard Battery or RAM or HDD or the Graphics card or the CPU or the motherboard or the drivers or a Virus or Grounding issues, or something short circuiting, basically it can be anything... I spent some days researching, and decided to remove the possibility of a virus. I reset the CMOS, cleared all BIOS settings and reinstalled windows 7 after a full format of the HDD, but the random power off kept happening. I then disabled the restart on error option in windows and looked at the event log for error events, but they did not help me figure out the problem. Network list service depends on network location awareness the dependency group failed to start Source Kernel Power Event 41 Task Category 63 Source Disk Event ID 11 Task Category None The driver detected a controller error on device disk I took apart the PC, every little piece, re-applied some expensive thermal paste to the CPU, and double checked that none of the pieces are touching the PC case. The problem was gone, the PC no longer powered off randomly I re-attached the graphics card and all was good for 4 months... then the power off problem appeared again, but was happening at high intervals, the PC would shutdown once in 2 days on average, at random points in time, sometimes when it's idle all day long, sometimes when it's running CRYSIS 2. I checked the CPU temperature, because I know that AMD CPU's have a built in protection mechanism that switches off the PC if the CPU gets too hot, and the Temp was 50C system temp, and 45C CPU after running the PC all day long (I did not do tests to see if there are any temperature spikes, don't know how to do them) Originally the PSU that powered the PC was 650Watts and had one 4 pin cable to power the CPU, I replaced it with a new 750Watts PSU which has two 4 pin cables for the CPU, but the problem remained. I removed the graphics card and let the motherboard use the built in one, but the PC kept suddenly powering off at random times. I took apart the PC completely again, and re-applied thermal paste to the CPU, added lots of insulation, and checked for any type of short-circuit possibility again and again, but the problem remained. The problem was like that for some months. I replaced the Battery a couple of times over the time, changed lots of options in windows, and tried everything I could, but it kept powering off, so I stopped using the PC as much as I used to, just living with the random power offs from time to time, until a couple of days ago, when the power off happens almost immediately after powering on the PC. I replaced the RAM with a brand new one, but that did not help. Took apart the PC again, checked for anything anywhere that might cause it, found some small scratches on the very edge of the motherboard to the left of the PCI express x16 slot. This might cause the problem, I thought, but the scratch looks very superficial, not deep at all, and if the scratch did harm the motherboard, wouldn't it cause it to not start at all? And why did it start to power off a while ago, and then suddenly stop powering off? The scratches could not have vanished??? did chkdsk \d but it powered off when it was at 75% I removed the hard disks, the graphics card, while I fiddled with the BIOS settings, and suddenly the PC shut down while I was looking at the BIOS version. This makes me realize, it is not caused by: HDD, Windows, Drivers or the Graphics card I cleared the CMOS again, updated the BIOS from F5 to F6f beta, but that did not help, it might even seem that the PC powers off even sooner. The shutdown even happened to me while I booted through a windows 7 installation USB and was in the repair console. I removed one of the cables powering the CPU, now only one 4pin cable powers it, and it worked for 30mins after doing that, which makes me think that it's the CPU overheating, and because it gets less power, it overheats slower? The things that I am still considering: CPU overheating (does not seem to overheat, maybe false readings?) Motherboard short circuiting (faulty motherboard?) I desperately need some advice in what is faulty, is it a faulty Motherboard or an overheating CPU? or maybe something else? I have been breaking my head over this problem over a span of 6 months. I'm not sure if this is a good place to ask this question, if it is not, then tell me where I can get some experienced help. More info I have also discovered a mysterious piece that seems to have fallen out of the motherboard i119.photobucket.com/albums/o126/yurikolovsky/strangepiece.jpg What is it? Looks like each time that it powers off the datetime gets reset I also found another forum post tomshardware.co.uk/forum/… except I don't have Integrated PeripheralsUSB Keyboard Function option in BIOS :S Comments summary (asked by Random moderator) Q. tell me, if the computer restarts, is it immediately? Does it take a second and then restarts? Do you see (BSOD) or hear (PSU, short circuit) any suspicious when it happens? After reading trough it, it remains the mainboard that is faulty. – JohannesM A. Immediate power off, all the fans stop instantly, all the light turn off instantly, no sound or anything, and it remains off until I turn it back on. Thanks for the feedback, faulty motherboard is what I fear. Q. Try stress-testing the system with Prime95 and see if errors or shutdowns occur when the CPU is under full load. – speakr A. Prime95 heat stress test peaked CPU heat at 60C after 5mins, it powered off after 30mins of testing in the middle of the test with no errors, Prime95 Heat test or the stress-testing with low RAM usage (small or in-place FFTs) do not report errors while testing for 10-60 mins. The power off does not seem like it is affected by Prime95 at all Makes me wonder if it's a CPU or Motherboard issue at all. Q. I had similar random/intermittent problems with my old board. It gave one of a few different symptoms: keyboard and/or mouse would die and/or the RAM wouldn't work and/or it would shut down. It was in bad shape. One problems was that my old PSU had literally burned the connector on it (browned around the pins), another was that a broken lead inside the layers of the PCB would work sometimes if it happened to be hot or if I bent the board—by jamming a hunk of wood behind it. I managed to keep the board alive for several years, but eventually nothing I did would make it work correctly anymore. – Synetech A. I will try that as the last resort, ok? ;) Q. Have you tried a different power cord, surge protector, outlet (on a different circuit). It's worth a shot just to ensure it's not subpar wiring or a week circuit (dips in power may cause shutdown if the PSU can't pull enough juice from the wall). – Kyle A. yes, I attached the PC to an entirely different outlet on a different circuit and the problem persists. After connecting it to a different outlet after starting the PC it gave me 3 long beeps and 1 short one, then the PC immediately proceeded to boot up normally. Q. Re-check your mainboard manual and all PSU connections to your mainboard to be sure that nothing is missing (e.g. 12V ATX 4-pin/6-pin connector). If you can provoke shutdowns with Prime95, then consider buying new hardware -- a stable system should run Prime95 for 24h without any errors. Prime95 mentions errors in the log when they occur and gives a summary after the stress test was stopped manually (e.g. "0 errors, 0 warnings", if all is fine) – speakr A. Re-checked, there are no more PSU connectors that I can physically connect, except the one ATX 4-pin (there are 2 that power the CPU) that I disconnected on purpose, I have reconnected it but the problem persists. Q. With one PC I had a short curcuit. The power button on the front plate had its cables soldered, but not isolated, and the contacts were very close to the metal case. A heavier touch was enough to cause a shutdown. The PC's vibration could be enough – ott-- A. yes, it seems to switch off with even the lightest touch, I switched on the PC, then pulled out the front panel power cable that connects to the motherboard so the power button does not work anymore, after 5 mins of working like that, with the power button completely disconnected, just sitting idle, the PC powered off again, I don't think it's the power button. Q. I wonder if you dare to operate components without the case, that is remove motherboard, power, disk ( just put the motherboard on a wooden desk). Don't bend the adapters when running like that. – ott-- A. yes, I do dare to do that, but only tomorrow, too tired/late right now.

    Read the article

  • TCP RST right after FIN/ACK

    - by Nitzan Shaked
    I am having the weirdest issue: I have a web server which sometimes, only on very specific requests, will send a RST to the client after having sent the FIN datagram. First, a description of the setup: The server runs on an Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS, which itself is a VM guest inside a Win7 x64 host, in bridged mode. ufw is disabled on the host The client runs on a iOS simulator, which runs on OS X Mountain Lion, which is a VM guest (hackintosh) inside a Win7 x64 host, in bridged mode. Both client and server are on the same LAN, one is connected to the home router via an Ethernet cable, and then other thru WiFi. I happened to glimpse over the server's http logs and found that the client sometimes issuing multiple subsequent identical requests. Further investigation led me to discover that this happens when the server sends a RST, and that the client is simply re-trying. I am attaching several tcpdump's: Good1 is the server-side tcpdump of a good session ("good" meaning no RST was generated). Good3 is another sever-side tcpdump of a good session. (The difference between Good1 and Good3 is the order in which ACK's were sent from the server to the client, ACK'ing the client's request. The client's request arives in 2 segements (specifically: one for the http headers, and another for a body containing an empty json object, "{}"). In Good1, the server ACK's both request segments, using 2 ACK segments, after the second request has arrived. In Good3, the server ACK's each request segment with an ACK segment as soon as the request segment arrives. Not that it should make a difference.) Bad1 is a dump, both client- and server-side, of a bad session. Bad2 is another bad session, this time server-side only. Note that in all "bad" sessions, the server ACK's each request segments immediately after having received it. I've looked at a few other bad sessions, and the situation is the same in all of them. But this is also the behavior in "Good3", so I don't see how that observation helps me, of for that matter why it should matter. I can't find any difference between good and bad sessions, or at least one that I think should matter. My question is: why are those RST's being generated? Or at least: how do I go about debugging this, or providing more info here that'll help? Edit 2 new facts that I have learned: Section 4.2.2.13 of the RFC (1122) (and Wikipedia, in the article "TCP", under "Connection Termination") says that a TCP application on one host may close the connection before it has read all of the data in its socket buffer, and in such a case the TCP on the host will sent a RST to the other side, to let it know that not all the data it has sent has been read. I'm not sure I completely understand this, since closing my side of the connection still allows me to read, no? It also means that I can't write any more. I am not sure this is relevant, though, since I see a RST after FIN. There are multiple complaints of this happening with wsgiref (Python's dev-mode HTTP server), which is exactly what I'm using. I'll keep updating as I find out more. Thanks! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good1 -- Server Side ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13:28:02.308319 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [S], seq 94268074, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 943308864 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 13:28:02.308336 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [S.], seq 1726304574, ack 94268075, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 326480982 ecr 943308864,nop,wscale 3], length 0 13:28:02.309750 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308865 ecr 326480982], length 0 13:28:02.310744 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 1:351, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308865 ecr 326480982], length 350 13:28:02.310766 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 351:353, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308865 ecr 326480982], length 2 13:28:02.310841 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [.], ack 351, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480983 ecr 943308865], length 0 13:28:02.310918 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [.], ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480983 ecr 943308865], length 0 13:28:02.315931 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [P.], seq 1:18, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480984 ecr 943308865], length 17 13:28:02.316107 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [FP.], seq 18:684, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480984 ecr 943308865], length 666 13:28:02.317651 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 18, win 8234, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308872 ecr 326480984], length 0 13:28:02.318288 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308872 ecr 326480984], length 0 13:28:02.318640 IP 192.168.1.51.51479 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [F.], seq 353, ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943308872 ecr 326480984], length 0 13:28:02.318651 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51479: Flags [.], ack 354, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480985 ecr 943308872], length 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good3 -- Server Side ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13:28:03.311143 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [S], seq 1982901126, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 943309853 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 13:28:03.311155 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [S.], seq 2245063571, ack 1982901127, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 326481233 ecr 943309853,nop,wscale 3], length 0 13:28:03.312671 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309854 ecr 326481233], length 0 13:28:03.313330 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 1:351, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309855 ecr 326481233], length 350 13:28:03.313337 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [.], ack 351, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326481234 ecr 943309855], length 0 13:28:03.313342 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 351:353, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309855 ecr 326481233], length 2 13:28:03.313346 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [.], ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326481234 ecr 943309855], length 0 13:28:03.327942 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [P.], seq 1:18, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326481237 ecr 943309855], length 17 13:28:03.328253 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [FP.], seq 18:684, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326481237 ecr 943309855], length 666 13:28:03.329076 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 18, win 8234, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309868 ecr 326481237], length 0 13:28:03.329688 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309868 ecr 326481237], length 0 13:28:03.330361 IP 192.168.1.51.51486 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [F.], seq 353, ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943309869 ecr 326481237], length 0 13:28:03.330370 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51486: Flags [.], ack 354, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326481238 ecr 943309869], length 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bad1 -- Server Side ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13:28:01.311876 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [S], seq 920400580, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 943307883 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 13:28:01.311896 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [S.], seq 3103085782, ack 920400581, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 326480733 ecr 943307883,nop,wscale 3], length 0 13:28:01.313509 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307884 ecr 326480733], length 0 13:28:01.315614 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 1:351, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307886 ecr 326480733], length 350 13:28:01.315727 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [.], ack 351, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480734 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:01.316229 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 351:353, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307886 ecr 326480733], length 2 13:28:01.316242 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [.], ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480734 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:01.321019 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [P.], seq 1:18, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480735 ecr 943307886], length 17 13:28:01.321294 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [FP.], seq 18:684, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307886], length 666 13:28:01.321386 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R.], seq 685, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:01.322727 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 18, win 8234, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307891 ecr 326480735], length 0 13:28:01.322733 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R], seq 3103085800, win 0, length 0 13:28:01.323221 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307892 ecr 326480736], length 0 13:28:01.323231 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R], seq 3103086467, win 0, length 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bad1 -- Client Side ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13:28:11.374654 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [S], seq 920400580, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 943307883 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 13:28:11.375764 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [S.], seq 3103085782, ack 920400581, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 326480733 ecr 943307883,nop,wscale 3], length 0 13:28:11.376352 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307884 ecr 326480733], length 0 13:28:11.378252 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 1:351, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307886 ecr 326480733], length 350 13:28:11.379027 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 351:353, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307886 ecr 326480733], length 2 13:28:11.379732 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [.], ack 351, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480734 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:11.380592 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [.], ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480734 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:11.384968 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [P.], seq 1:18, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480735 ecr 943307886], length 17 13:28:11.385044 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 18, win 8234, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307891 ecr 326480735], length 0 13:28:11.385586 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [FP.], seq 18:684, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307886], length 666 13:28:11.385743 IP 192.168.1.51.51472 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307892 ecr 326480736], length 0 13:28:11.385966 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R.], seq 685, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307886], length 0 13:28:11.387343 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R], seq 3103085800, win 0, length 0 13:28:11.387344 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51472: Flags [R], seq 3103086467, win 0, length 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bad2 -- Server Side ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13:28:01.319185 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [S], seq 1631526992, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 943307889 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 13:28:01.319197 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [S.], seq 2524685719, ack 1631526993, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 326480735 ecr 943307889,nop,wscale 3], length 0 13:28:01.320692 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307890 ecr 326480735], length 0 13:28:01.322219 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 1:351, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307890 ecr 326480735], length 350 13:28:01.322336 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [.], ack 351, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307890], length 0 13:28:01.322689 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [P.], seq 351:353, ack 1, win 8235, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307890 ecr 326480735], length 2 13:28:01.322700 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [.], ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480736 ecr 943307890], length 0 13:28:01.326307 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [P.], seq 1:18, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480737 ecr 943307890], length 17 13:28:01.326614 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [FP.], seq 18:684, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480737 ecr 943307890], length 666 13:28:01.326710 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [R.], seq 685, ack 353, win 1944, options [nop,nop,TS val 326480737 ecr 943307890], length 0 13:28:01.328499 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 18, win 8234, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307896 ecr 326480737], length 0 13:28:01.328509 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [R], seq 2524685737, win 0, length 0 13:28:01.328514 IP 192.168.1.51.51473 > 192.168.1.132.5000: Flags [.], ack 685, win 8192, options [nop,nop,TS val 943307896 ecr 326480737], length 0 13:28:01.328517 IP 192.168.1.132.5000 > 192.168.1.51.51473: Flags [R], seq 2524686404, win 0, length 0

    Read the article

  • client problems - misaligned expectations & not following SDLC protocols

    - by louism
    hi guys, im having some serious problems with a client on a project - i could use some advice please the short version i have been working with this client now for almost 6 months without any problems (a classified website project in the range of 500 hours) over the last few days things have drastically deteriorated to the point where ive had to place the project on-hold whilst i work-out what to do (this has pissed the client off even more) to be simplistic, the root cause of the issue is this: the client doesnt read the specs i make for him, i code the feature, he than wants to change things, i tell him its not to the agreed spec and that that change will have to be postponed and possibly charged for, he gets upset and rants saying 'hes paid for the feature' and im not keeping to the agreement (<- misalignment of expectations) i think the root cause of the root cause is my clients failure to take my SDLC protocols seriously. i have a bug tracking system in place which he practically refuses to use (he still emails me bugs), he doesnt seem to care to much for the protocols i use for dealing with scope creep and change control the whole situation came to a head recently where he 'cracked it' (an aussie term for being fed-up). the more terms like 'postponed for post-launch implementation', 'costed feature addition', and 'not to agreed spec' i kept using, the worse it got finally, he began to bully me - basically insisting i shut-up and do the work im being paid for. i wrote a long-winded email explaining how wrong he was on all these different points, and explaining what all the SDLC protocols do to protect the success of the project. than i deleted that email and wrote a new one in the new email, i suggested as a solution i write up a list of grievances we both had. we than review the list and compromise on different points: he gets some things he wants, i get some things i want. sometimes youve got to give ground to get ground his response to this suggestion was flat-out refusal, and a restatement that i should just get on with the work ive been paid to do so there you have the very subjective short version. if you have the time and inclination, the long version may be a little less bias as it has the email communiques between me and my client the long version (with background) the long version works by me showing you the email communiques which lead to the situation coming to a head. so here it is, judge for yourself where the trouble started... 1. client asked me why something was missing from a feature i just uploaded, my response was to show him what was in the spec: it basically said the item he was looking for was never going to be included 2. [clients response...] Memo Louis, We are following your own title fields and keeping a consistent layout. Why the big fuss about not adding "Part". It simply replaces "model" and is consistent with your current title fields. 3. [my response...] hi [client], the 'part' field appeared to me as a redundancy / mistake. i requested clarification but never received any in a timely manner (about 2 weeks ago) the specification for this feature also indicated it wasnt going to be included: RE: "Why the big fuss about not adding "Part" " it may not appear so, but it would actually be a lot of work for me to now add a 'Part' field it could take me up to 15-20 minutes to properly explain why its such a big undertaking to do this, but i would prefer to use that time instead to work on completing your v1.1 features as a simplistic explanation - it connects to the change in paradigm from a 'generic classified ad' model to a 'specific attributes for specific categories' model basically, i am saying it is a big fuss, but i understand that it doesnt look that way - after all, it is just one ity-bitty field :) if you require a fuller explanation, please let me know and i will commit the time needed to write that out also, if you recall when we first started on the project, i said that with the effort/time required for features, you would likely not know off the top of your head. you may think something is really complex, but in reality its quite simple, you might think something is easy - but it could actually be a massive trauma to code (which is the case here with the 'Part' field). if you also recalled, i said the best course of action is to just ask, and i would let you know on a case-by-case basis 4. [email from me to client...] hi [client], the online catalogue page is now up live (see my email from a few days ago for information on how it works) note: the window of opportunity for input/revisions on what data the catalogue stores has now closed (as i have put the code up live now) RE: the UI/layout of the online catalogue page you may still do visual/ui tweaks to the page at the moment (this window for input/revisions will close in a couple of days time) 5. [email from client to me...] *(note: i had put up the feature & asked the client to review it, never heard back from them for a few days)* Memo Louis, Here you go again. CLOSED without a word of input from the customer. I don't think so. I will reply tomorrow regarding the content and functionality we require from this feature. 5. [from me to client...] hi [client]: RE: from my understanding, you are saying that the mini-sale yard control would change itself based on the fact someone was viewing for parts & accessories <- is that correct? this change is outside the scope of the v1.1 mini-spec and therefore will need to wait 'til post launch for costing/implementation 6. [email from client to me...] Memo Louis, Following your v1.1 mini-spec and all your time paid in full for the work selected. We need to make the situation clear. There will be no further items held for post-launch. Do not expect us to pay for any further items other than those we have agreed upon. You have undertaken to complete the Parts and accessories feature as follows. Obviously, as part of this process the "mini search" will be effected, and will require "adaption to make sense". 7. [email from me to client...] hi [client], RE: "There will be no further items held for post-launch. Do not expect us to pay for any further items other than those we have agreed upon." a few points to consider: 1) the specification for the 'parts & accessories' feature was as follows: (i.e. [what] "...we have agreed upon.") 2) you have received the 'parts & accessories' feature free of charge (you have paid $0 for it). ive spent two days coding that feature as a gesture of good will i would request that you please consider these two facts carefully and sincerely 8. [email from client to me...] Memo Louis, I don't see how you are giving us anything for free. From your original fee proposal you have deleted more than 30 hours of included features. Your title "shelved features". Further you have charged us twice by adding back into the site, at an addition cost, some of those "shelved features" features. See v1.1 mini-spec. Did include in your original fee proposal a change request budget but then charge without discussion items included in v1.1 mini-spec. Included a further Features test plan for a regression test, a fee of 10 hours that would not have been required if the "shelved features" were not left out of the agreed fee proposal. I have made every attempt to satisfy your your uneven business sense by offering you everything your heart desired, in the v1.1 mini-spec, to be left once again with your attitude of "its too hard, lets leave it for post launch". I am no longer accepting anything less than what we have contracted you to do. That is clearly defined in v1.1 mini-spec, and you are paid in advance for delivering those items as an acceptable function. a few notes about the above email... i had to cull features from the original spec because it didnt fit into the budget. i explained this to the client at the start of the project (he wanted more features than he had budget hours to do them all) nothing has been charged for twice, i didnt charge the client for culled features. im charging him to now do those culled features the draft version of the project schedule included a change request budget of 10 hours, but i had to remove that to meet the budget (the client may not have been aware of this to be fair to them) what the client refers to as my attitude of 'too hard/leave it for post-launch', i called a change request protocol and a method for keeping scope creep under control 9. [email from me to client...] hi [client], RE: "...all your grievances..." i had originally written out a long email response; it was fantastic, it had all these great points of how 'you were wrong' and 'i was right', you would of loved it (and by 'loved it', i mean it would of just infuriated you more) so, i decided to deleted it start over, for two reasons: 1) a long email is being disrespectful of your time (youre a busy businessman with things to do) 2) whos wrong or right gets us no closer to fixing the problems we are experiencing what i propose is this... i prepare a bullet point list of your grievances and my grievances (yes, im unhappy too about how things are going - and it has little to do with money) i submit this list to you for you to add to as necessary we then both take a good hard look at this list, and we decide which areas we are willing to give ground on as an example, the list may look something like this: "louis, you keep taking away features you said you would do" [your grievance 2] [your grievance 3] [your grievance ...] "[client], i feel you dont properly read the specs i prepare for you..." [my grievance 2] [my grievance 3] [my grievance ...] if you are willing to give this a try, let me know will it work? who knows. but if it doesnt, we can always go back to arguing some more :) obviously, this will only work if you are willing to give it a genuine try, and you can accept that you may have to 'give some ground to get some ground' what do you think? 10. [email from client to me ...] Memo Louis, Instead of wasting your time listing grievances, I would prefer you complete the items in v1.1 mini-spec, to a satisfactory conclusion. We almost had the website ready for launch until you brought the v1.1 mini-spec into the frame. Obviously I expected you could complete the v1.1 mini-spec in a two-week time frame as you indicated and give the site a more profession presentation. Most of the problems have been caused by you not following our instructions, but deciding to do what you feel like at the time. And then arguing with us how the missing information is not necessary. For instance "Parts and Accessories". Why on earth would you leave out the parts heading, when it ties-in with the fields you have already developed. It replaces "model" and is just as important in the context of information that appears in the "Details" panel. We are at a stage where the the v1.1 mini-spec needs to be completed without further time wasting and the site is complete (subject to all features working). We are on standby at this end to do just that. Let me know when you are back, working on the site and we will process and complete each v1.1 mini-spec, item by item, until the job is complete. 11. [last email from me to client...] hi [client], based on this reply, and your demonstrated unwillingness to compromise/give any ground on issues at hand, i have decided to place your project on-hold for the moment i will be considering further options on how to over-come our challenges over the next few days i will contact you by monday 17/may to discuss any new options i have come up with, and if i believe it is appropriate to restart work on your project at that point or not told you it was long... what do you think?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20