On 17.04.2014 15:13, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@tvdr.de wrote:
On 17.04.2014 13:07, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
I see errors like the below on every VDR (2.0.6) startup and apparently exactly 30 minute intervals after that in syslog:
ERROR: invalid sat cable number in '[apparent binary junk]'The binary junk varies, today it's been for example '<C0><C0>ۙ>^?' and '<C0>0<BE><A4><8F>^?' as shown by "less". Any ideas what would be causing this or if I could do something to help debug this further?
Please post (or send me via PM) the complete log from the very start of VDR up until the above error message.
Sent in PM.
Please also post the line
DeviceBondings = ...
from your setup.conf file.
# grep DeviceBondings /etc/vdr/setup.conf DeviceBondings = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
This is a DVB-C only system BTW (one FF and two budget cards).
From your log:
Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] probing /dev/dvb/adapter0/frontend0 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] creating cDvbDevice Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] new device number 1 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] frontend 0/0 provides DVB-C with QAM16,QAM32,QAM64,QAM128,QAM256 ("ST STV0297 DVB-C") Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] probing /dev/dvb/adapter1/frontend0 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] creating cDvbDevice Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] new device number 2 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] frontend 1/0 provides DVB-C with QAM16,QAM32,QAM64,QAM128,QAM256 ("ST STV0297 DVB-C") Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] probing /dev/dvb/adapter2/frontend0 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] creating cDvbDevice Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] new device number 3 Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] frontend 2/0 provides DVB-C with QAM16,QAM32,QAM64,QAM128,QAM256 ("VLSI VES1820 DVB-C") Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] found 3 DVB devices Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] initializing plugin: softhddevice (0.6.1rc1): A software and GPU emulated HD device Apr 17 16:03:21 vdr[16019]: [16019] new device number 9
What looks a little strange here is the gap between device number 3 and 9. Maybe this causes some misbehavior in handling device bonding?
Klaus