Today the official Release Candidate of the 9.0 image went public. For those who never tested a Nightly Build before because being afraid then now is the opportunity to test this RC. Any comments / observations we look forward to receiving. And of course all positive comments are also nice to hear.
The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online.
#1
Posted 16 August 2023 - 15:18
Mijn schotel is een T90 met 10 LNB's. Daarnaast voor de fun nog een draaibaar systeem met een Triax TD 78.
Dreamboxen heb ik niet meer echt actief. Verder heb ik ook nog een een VU+ duo2 met 500Gb harddisk + een VU+ Uno, Zero, Solo 4K, Ultimo 4K, Zero 4K, Uno 4Kse. + ook nog een Xtrend ET7x00. Daarnaast heb ik ook nog diverse andere modellen w.o. een Formuler F4, ET8500, ET7500, Mut@nt 2400HD, Xsarius Fusion HD se en verder nog wel het e.e.a. waarmee op verzoek vanalles wordt getest. Iemand moet het tenslotte doen.
Los van de eerder genoemde modellen heb ik nog wel een rits aan testsamples als Mut@nt 2400HD, HD60, GB UE4K, GB Trio4K, Maxitec Multibox combo en Twin, Octagon sf8008, sf8008 mini en last but nog least enkele modellen van het Grieks Duitse Edision.
Voor centrale opslag van media gebruik ik een Qnap 219P met tweemaal 2 Tb harddisks + een Synology DS414 met 12 Tb Totale opslag.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many answers to your question can be found in our wiki: Just one click away from this "solutioncentre".
Als ik alles al wist hoefde ik ook niets te vragen. If I had all the knowledge I had no questions at all.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #2
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #3
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #4
Posted 16 August 2023 - 23:43
Hello,
Upgrade was easy and very good with the flashimage. After reboot, i have reinstall all my plugins and all is perfect. (pluto.tv, rakuten.tv, astra-sm and so on, all is OK).
This image will be soon the best of OpenPli...
Thanks a lot to all the team.
TNT/Sat : VU+ Duo 4K SE - Home cinema : Onkyo TX NR686 | Air Gay Radio
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #5
Posted 17 August 2023 - 09:49
Thanks for the new image!
There is an issue with wifi driver in latest nightly and 9.0RC on Vu+ Ultimo 4K. As shown on screenshots, with PLi 8.3 the Bitrate connection is 866.5 Mb/s, but on 9.0RC is just 400 Mb/s. I've noticed this on latest nighties as well. The nightly builds from 3-4 months ago doesn't have this problem.
If somebody with same box can check and reconfirm that max speed now is limited to just 400 Mb/s, then might be necessary to switch back to previous driver if this is the issue...
Attached Files
VU+ Ultimo 4K; Clarke-Tech et9000
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #6
Posted 17 August 2023 - 09:49
If you have ipk's that you install manually (as in: not from the plugins feed), copy them to the autobackup backup directory, and they will be reinstalled automatically.
And don't forget you need pyhton3 versions of those plugins.
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #7
Posted 17 August 2023 - 10:18
Thanks for the new image!
There is an issue with wifi driver in latest nightly and 9.0RC on Vu+ Ultimo 4K. As shown on screenshots, with PLi 8.3 the Bitrate connection is 866.5 Mb/s, but on 9.0RC is just 400 Mb/s. I've noticed this on latest nighties as well. The nightly builds from 3-4 months ago doesn't have this problem.
If somebody with same box can check and reconfirm that max speed now is limited to just 400 Mb/s, then might be necessary to switch back to previous driver if this is the issue...
Kernel versions haven't changed (no vendor updates their linux kernel), therefore drivers haven't changed. It is possible, if your TP_LINK uses an out-of-tree driver, that there was a new version of that driver. But for that I need to know which driver is in use.
Have you tested the throughput?
What is shown there is whatever the commandline tools report, which is usually rubbish.
This is not unique to the box, Windows does exactly the same. The speed it displays bears no resemblance to the real world, if only because the driver has no idea what else is active (wifi is a shared medium and throttles to the speed of the slowest client).
I've checked two boxes:
root@vusolo4k:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"OpenPLi" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DB:59 Bit Rate=130 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Retry short limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:off Power Management:off Link Quality=67/70 Signal level=-43 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:2478 Invalid misc:1153 Missed beacon:0 root@sf8008:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"OpenPLi" Nickname:"<WIFI@REALTEK>" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DC:41 Bit Rate:144.4 Mb/s Sensitivity:0/0 Retry:off RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:****-****-****-****-****-****-****-**** Security mode:open Power Management:off Link Quality=84/100 Signal level=-49 dBm Noise level=0 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 root@hd66se:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11AC ESSID:"OpenPLi" Nickname:"<WIFI@REALTEK>" Mode:Managed Frequency:5.2 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DC:42 Bit Rate:200 Mb/s Sensitivity:0/0 Retry:off RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:****-****-****-****-****-****-****-**** Security mode:open Power Management:off Link Quality=85/100 Signal level=-35 dBm Noise level=0 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
but in terms of throughput:
root@vusolo4k:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.52 port 37850 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.76 MBytes 73.5 Mbits/sec 0 331 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.35 MBytes 78.5 Mbits/sec 0 515 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 8.38 MBytes 70.3 Mbits/sec 0 683 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 8.27 MBytes 69.4 Mbits/sec 0 905 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.25 MBytes 77.6 Mbits/sec 0 1.00 MBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 8.83 MBytes 74.1 Mbits/sec 0 1.05 MBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 8.58 MBytes 72.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 8.71 MBytes 73.1 Mbits/sec 0 1.12 MBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 8.46 MBytes 71.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.12 MBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.06 MBytes 76.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.14 MBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 87.7 MBytes 73.5 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.02 sec 87.4 MBytes 73.1 Mbits/sec receiver root@sf8008:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.60 port 41114 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 14.0 MBytes 117 Mbits/sec 0 392 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 105 Mbits/sec 0 413 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 434 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 10.0 MBytes 83.9 Mbits/sec 0 434 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 460 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 484 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 10.0 MBytes 83.9 Mbits/sec 0 484 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 105 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 112 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec receiver root@hd66se:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.65 port 34010 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 13.6 MBytes 114 Mbits/sec 0 413 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 549 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 611 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 682 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 725 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 802 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 802 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 160 MBytes 134 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 157 MBytes 131 Mbits/sec receiver
both tested to my NAS.
my Solo has 2.4Ghz connection, the Mutant a 5Ghz connection. I only use 40Mhz bands on 5Ghz, which limits the maximum throughput a bit.
As a test I moved everything off the AP the Solo was connected to, that changed the reported bitrate figure, but didn't significantly change the throughput.
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #8
Posted 17 August 2023 - 10:40
This morning I tried to use the "Media Player" plugin, which comes with RC9.0, but it crashes at start.
Enigma2 crashlog:
Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/StartEnigma.py", line 223, in processDelay callback(*retval) File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/Plugins/Extensions/MediaScanner/plugin.py", line 19, in execute File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/Components/Scanner.py", line 78, in open File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/Plugins/Extensions/MediaPlayer/plugin.py", line 1195, in filescan_open File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/StartEnigma.py", line 312, in open dlg = self.current_dialog = self.instantiateDialog(screen, *arguments, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/StartEnigma.py", line 255, in instantiateDialog return self.doInstantiateDialog(screen, arguments, kwargs, self.desktop) File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/StartEnigma.py", line 272, in doInstantiateDialog dlg = screen(self, *arguments, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/Plugins/Extensions/MediaPlayer/plugin.py", line 249, in __init__ File "/usr/lib/enigma2/python/Components/Playlist.py", line 54, in open File "/usr/lib/python3.9/codecs.py", line 322, in decode UnicodeDecodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xfc in position 122: invalid start byte [ePyObject] (CallObject(<bound method Session.processDelay of <__main__.Session object at 0x716ed688>>,()) failed)
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #9
Posted 17 August 2023 - 15:54
Something in the playlist that isnt UTF-8 ?
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #10
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #11
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #12
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #13
Posted 17 August 2023 - 19:01
BTW. The playlist which created the problem was in the backup I used.
In python 2, everything is a string of bytes. In Python3, bytes and str are two different types, so if you need to convert, you need to specify a source charset.
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #14
Posted 17 August 2023 - 19:02
I use openatv image and i want try OpenPLI image, but when i flash with usb,the box dont boot. Only see the logo image....
Which box?
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #15
Posted 17 August 2023 - 21:20
Thanks for the new image!
There is an issue with wifi driver in latest nightly and 9.0RC on Vu+ Ultimo 4K. As shown on screenshots, with PLi 8.3 the Bitrate connection is 866.5 Mb/s, but on 9.0RC is just 400 Mb/s. I've noticed this on latest nighties as well. The nightly builds from 3-4 months ago doesn't have this problem.
If somebody with same box can check and reconfirm that max speed now is limited to just 400 Mb/s, then might be necessary to switch back to previous driver if this is the issue...
Kernel versions haven't changed (no vendor updates their linux kernel), therefore drivers haven't changed. It is possible, if your TP_LINK uses an out-of-tree driver, that there was a new version of that driver. But for that I need to know which driver is in use.
Have you tested the throughput?
What is shown there is whatever the commandline tools report, which is usually rubbish.
This is not unique to the box, Windows does exactly the same. The speed it displays bears no resemblance to the real world, if only because the driver has no idea what else is active (wifi is a shared medium and throttles to the speed of the slowest client).
I've checked two boxes:
root@vusolo4k:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"OpenPLi" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DB:59 Bit Rate=130 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Retry short limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:off Power Management:off Link Quality=67/70 Signal level=-43 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:2478 Invalid misc:1153 Missed beacon:0 root@sf8008:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"OpenPLi" Nickname:"<WIFI@REALTEK>" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DC:41 Bit Rate:144.4 Mb/s Sensitivity:0/0 Retry:off RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:****-****-****-****-****-****-****-**** Security mode:open Power Management:off Link Quality=84/100 Signal level=-49 dBm Noise level=0 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 root@hd66se:~# iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11AC ESSID:"OpenPLi" Nickname:"<WIFI@REALTEK>" Mode:Managed Frequency:5.2 GHz Access Point: 7A:45:58:33:DC:42 Bit Rate:200 Mb/s Sensitivity:0/0 Retry:off RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:****-****-****-****-****-****-****-**** Security mode:open Power Management:off Link Quality=85/100 Signal level=-35 dBm Noise level=0 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0but in terms of throughput:
root@vusolo4k:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.52 port 37850 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.76 MBytes 73.5 Mbits/sec 0 331 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.35 MBytes 78.5 Mbits/sec 0 515 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 8.38 MBytes 70.3 Mbits/sec 0 683 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 8.27 MBytes 69.4 Mbits/sec 0 905 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.25 MBytes 77.6 Mbits/sec 0 1.00 MBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 8.83 MBytes 74.1 Mbits/sec 0 1.05 MBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 8.58 MBytes 72.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 8.71 MBytes 73.1 Mbits/sec 0 1.12 MBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 8.46 MBytes 71.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.12 MBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.06 MBytes 76.0 Mbits/sec 0 1.14 MBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 87.7 MBytes 73.5 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.02 sec 87.4 MBytes 73.1 Mbits/sec receiver root@sf8008:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.60 port 41114 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 14.0 MBytes 117 Mbits/sec 0 392 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 105 Mbits/sec 0 413 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 434 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 10.0 MBytes 83.9 Mbits/sec 0 434 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 460 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 484 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 10.0 MBytes 83.9 Mbits/sec 0 484 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 105 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 0 578 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 112 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec receiver root@hd66se:~# iperf3 -c 172.19.12.31 Connecting to host 172.19.12.31, port 5201 [ 5] local 172.19.12.65 port 34010 connected to 172.19.12.31 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 13.6 MBytes 114 Mbits/sec 0 413 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 549 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 611 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 682 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 725 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 802 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 802 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 16.2 MBytes 136 Mbits/sec 0 885 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 160 MBytes 134 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 157 MBytes 131 Mbits/sec receiverboth tested to my NAS.
my Solo has 2.4Ghz connection, the Mutant a 5Ghz connection. I only use 40Mhz bands on 5Ghz, which limits the maximum throughput a bit.
As a test I moved everything off the AP the Solo was connected to, that changed the reported bitrate figure, but didn't significantly change the throughput.
Here is my iwconfig output:
Attached Files
VU+ Ultimo 4K; Clarke-Tech et9000
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #16
Posted 17 August 2023 - 21:30
iperf3 -c should work fine on the box, as you can see from my post.
Any more info about that error message? Usually it comes with a description of the error that causes it?,
I can't comment any further, I need to know the exact driver used for the chipset TPLINK is using. Probably some realtek thing, they are known for their cheap crap...
Currently in use: VU+ Duo 4K (2xFBC S2), VU+ Solo 4K (1xFBC S2), uClan Usytm 4K Ultimate (S2+T2), Octagon SF8008 (S2+T2), Zgemma H9.2H (S2+T2)
Due to my bad health, I will not be very active at times and may be slow to respond. I will not read the forum or PM on a regular basis.
Many answers to your question can be found in our new and improved wiki.
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #17
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #18
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #19
Posted 18 August 2023 - 07:21
great news that the RC version is out, but I have one question. I tried to install some ipk plugins via software management, but with all of them this window appears and it doesn't disappear
Edited by Rudi1, 18 August 2023 - 07:21.
VU+Zero
Osmio4K
Re: The first Release Candidate of the 9.0 image is online. #20
Posted 18 August 2023 - 08:07
iperf3 -c should work fine on the box, as you can see from my post.
Any more info about that error message? Usually it comes with a description of the error that causes it?,
I can't comment any further, I need to know the exact driver used for the chipset TPLINK is using. Probably some realtek thing, they are known for their cheap crap...
VU+ Ultimo 4K; Clarke-Tech et9000
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users