TOS 6.0.420 Beta Is Available for Testing

[Tricky]

Since I cannot update from 6.4.229 to the 6.4 420 version, does this mean that I am going to have to re-install TOS again in order to be able to update?

[Gremlin]

Since I cannot update from 6.4.229 to the 6.4 420 version, does this mean that I am going to have to re-install TOS again in order to be able to update?

This may have something to do with it:

Due to hardware limitations, some older models are unable to update to TOS 6. Users of these models are advised not to attempt the update to TOS 6. The specific models include: F2-220, F4-220, F2-420, F4-420, F5-420, as well as the 221 series with a manufacturing date in Jun 2020 or earlier, which includes: F2-221, F2-421, F4-221, F5-221, F5-421.

[Tricky]

Since I cannot update from 6.4.229 to the 6.4 420 version, does this mean that I am going to have to re-install TOS again in order to be able to update?

This may have something to do with it:

Due to hardware limitations, some older models are unable to update to TOS 6. Users of these models are advised not to attempt the update to TOS 6. The specific models include: F2-220, F4-220, F2-420, F4-420, F5-420, as well as the 221 series with a manufacturing date in Jun 2020 or earlier, which includes: F2-221, F2-421, F4-221, F5-221, F5-421.

I strongly suspect thats now been edited as originally they stated my F5-221 was OK to update! or I wouldn't have tried! and it's been running the 6.4.229 for several months without a problem until I tried to update, even the apps are back which I was previously having trouble with, be interested to know what the hardware limitations are got 16gig of RAM so cant be that.

[Gremlin]

be interested to know what the hardware limitations are (my emphasis)

I think we would all like to know that! I have my operational setup on an F5-221 which looks doomed

But, you have to also see the massive change in os between .229 and current versions. I suspect they rebuilt the os and THEN found (probably via user experience!) that it would not run on some current machinery. However, someone at TM appears to be unprepared to admit their mistake in not conducting appropriate testing before beta release. (Frankly this feels more like Alpha and we {the customers} are just the guinea-pigs. or 'the mushrooms' - kept in the dark and covered in sh**) To my mind there should have been continued development at the point of .229 and a new os developed for new devices before they were released to the market. But,..........

[Tricky]

be interested to know what the hardware limitations are (my emphasis)

I think we would all like to know that! I have my operational setup on an F5-221 which looks doomed

But, you have to also see the massive change in os between .229 and current versions. I suspect they rebuilt the os and THEN found (probably via user experience!) that it would not run on some current machinery. However, someone at TM appears to be unprepared to admit their mistake in not conducting appropriate testing before beta release. (Frankly this feels more like Alpha and we {the customers} are just the guinea-pigs. or 'the mushrooms' - kept in the dark and covered in sh**) To my mind there should have been continued development at the point of .229 and a new os developed for new devices before they were released to the market. But,..........

Oh, i think most of us realised a long time ago that we are just beta testers here, TM are not fond of letting their customers know what's really going on and as you say never admit to mistakes, like I said I think it's maybe time to look at another mainstream brand, I have been saying this for some time now but I think its finally time to go for a brand that just works and updates are not something to be feared and looked on with trepidation.

[bonerserk]

I fixed mine. Search for "TLS/SSL" on this forum. My mail service provider provides port 465 for TLS you may have to check with your provider's configuration options. If you use Gmail - tough! - Gmail's default setup blocks machine generated emails. You have to make special arrangements which are detailed somewhere. (I only have backup accounts on Gmail)

Thanks for your info. I was able to fix my email setting. It was my fault in a wrong Google configuration. Now it works.
The local configuration is still not working.

[TMzethar]

It is possible that the connection between your network and the server is poor, or the DNS you are using fails to resolve the server's correct IP. If you can log in to the TOS terminal via SSH/Telnet/HDMI, try pinging the addresses: smtp.terra-master.com and see what is displayed.

[Gremlin]

Code: Select all

Pinging mail.abchk.net [223.29.250.111] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 223.29.250.111: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=51
Reply from 223.29.250.111: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=51
Reply from 223.29.250.111: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=51
Reply from 223.29.250.111: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 223.29.250.111:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 193ms, Maximum = 201ms, Average = 195ms

If it saves someone the trouble (I also have had issues with 'local' mail)

[bonerserk]

It is possible that the connection between your network and the server is poor, or the DNS you are using fails to resolve the server's correct IP. If you can log in to the TOS terminal via SSH/Telnet/HDMI, try pinging the addresses: smtp.terra-master.com and see what is displayed.

Thanks for your response.
I did this test:
I changed configuration to local email. I logged through ssh to tnas and I executed the ping test (result down below) and I tried to send a test email from tnas, from the notification page, but while the ping was responding the test email failed.

Code: Select all

# ping smtp.terra-master.com
PING mail.abchk.net (223.29.250.111) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=214 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=215 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=11 ttl=49 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=12 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=13 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=14 ttl=49 time=215 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=15 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=16 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=17 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=18 ttl=49 time=214 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=19 ttl=49 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=20 ttl=49 time=218 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=21 ttl=49 time=215 ms
64 bytes from 223.29.250.111 (223.29.250.111): icmp_seq=22 ttl=49 time=214 ms
^C
--- mail.abchk.net ping statistics ---
22 packets transmitted, 22 received, 0% packet loss, time 21019ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 211.621/212.946/217.623/1.464 ms

[mmalchuk]

what the difference between
TOS_X642.0_Update_6.0.420_00019_2407300950.bz2
and
TOS_X642.0_Update_6.0.420_00316_2407190853.bz2

what version is the latest 6.0.420 ?