My poor little Hummy is sick

[Black Hole]

If two crashes happen in quick succession (and that includes power loss), the CF takes the precautionary measure of unloading anything from flash that has the potential to be causing the crashes through a CF bug - so as to prevent a deadly embrace and therefore a continuous cycle of crashes. I don't think we've ever experienced this happening (thanks to the diligence of af123), but it could be a key feature during the package development phase.

The correct procedure after a disabled message, regardless of whether you notice any difference, is to run the fix-flash-packages diagnostic to reinstate the elements that reside in flash memory: WebIF >> Diagnostics >> Diagnostics >> select "fix-flash-packages" from list >> Run Diagnostic. The only reason this would not apply is if you don't have any packages loaded that use flash hooks.

 

[MikeSh]

Mine has done that for years. Every time I check webif (which is once or twice a year at most), it says some packages have been disabled. I believe it is lying, all packages are active as far as I can tell but I can't be sure.

I think you'll find the message says "may have been disabled", so it's not lying.

 

[Umpa]

I think you'll find the message says "may have been disabled", so it's not lying.

Yeah most likely it did, I used to just ignore it but since BH, explained what to do, I have found that the fix flash job did find problems and fixed them. Would be nice if there was a little button to press at the side of the error that you can push to do the check.

As a noob, and my attitude to the box as an appliance rather than a computer, something like that would be a nice touch to a fantastic system that seems to get better over time. I can see a lot of effort has gone in to this Firmware and Webif. The more I mess with it, the more impressed I become.

 

[Black Hole]

Would be nice if there was a little button to press at the side of the error that you can push to do the check.

And then everyone would just click the button by default, and not bother to find out if there was an underlying problem.

 

[Umpa]

And then everyone would just click the button by default, and not bother to find out if there was an underlying problem.

To be fair that's what I did anyway. I thought it was the correct procedure ? Lets face it I am not likely to understand any logs it shows up. I would generationally just ignore it. Power users might find the logs of use, I see them as gobbledegook.

 

[antipodean]

No, you have the newer unit with a fan that is fitted so it blows into the box. The jury is out on whether that is a good idea, I say no. It's easy to turn around, but you take your choice.

My personal preference is to have a fan blowing in so it pressurises the enclosure. This means there is a higher mass of air to conduct away any heat in addition to any radiative cooling that may occur. If the fan is sucking out then depending on what apertures are elsewhere in the case the air pressure inside will be lowered and hence potentially reduce any conductive heat removal.

The differences are probably minimal in any normal consumer product, but at least I have a theory to justify my preference.