(2014-05-09, 14:40)pszab Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-07, 02:53)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ]The 2820 NUC is a step below a RaspberryPI/Ouya in my opinion. maybe the NUC i3s are more robust my coworkers like using them for ESXi. I am thinking about RMAing mine and praying I will get a 2830 back. I suspect the NUCs are flawed from manufacturing. I gotta say I am impressed with intel for releasing windows 7 drivers finally. maybe the 2830 will fix the outstanding issues. I have my fingers crossed that BIOS 32 will fix my problems.
What kind of issues are fixed in nuc 2830?
I've read that some issues were but I don't know about them.
I don't know if the 2830 is out yet. I suspect all the firmware and UEFI bios issues will be corrected.
I just upgraded to bios 32 and my 2820 can't post or boot windows 8.
the 2830 come in June and all the corrections are also in the 2820 Bios
(2014-05-10, 21:37)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer the OE build in backup/restore.
Cheers xbs08,
I'll give the OpenElec backup version a try. I keep killing my setup and either have to start again from scratch or use a backup and then reconfigure further. I was also thinking of using Clonezilla to get an exact snapshot but haven't got around to giving it a go either.
RLTW
(2014-05-09, 18:36)Reinke Wrote: [ -> ]Okay so I got my NUC yesterday.
I installed xbmc (with openelec). Everything was working flawless, add-ons, videos and I couldn't be happier.
However. Today something strange happened. It couldn't go online regardless of staying as "Connected". After a while of fixing (or trying to) I gave up and decided to make a fresh install. Going through installing process I connect to my wireless internet. Again saying I'm connected after typing password ect. Still can't browse add-ons or even do a force update.
Right now I'm totally clueless about whats causing this. Does anyone have an idea?
TL;DR
Works perfect yesterday. Today internet doesn't work despite saying its connected fine. What do?
Exact same problem here on Friday. New NUC set-up and OpenELEC install went swimmingly, but despite being "Connected" I couldn't get online and I couldn't ssh into the box via Putty. In the end I put together a temporary wired connection and all was fine. The following morning I did a hard reset of the full OpenELEC install (it's in a menu somewhere) and that seemed to fix things for a while. It dropped connectivity during use at one point yesterday (it had been fine when I booted it up) and I can't figure out why, but rebooting seemed to work. I *think* I may have disabled wired connection at some point in one of the settings, maybe that helped. I'll report back if I have the problem again.
Apart from that, I'm very happy with everything. I need to set up a remote next.
(2014-05-11, 20:25)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]AFAIK updating the library doesn't remove item stored in a network share, only clean library will.
To my knowledge it isn't
supposed to do so. Why it
did happen - I do not know. In my level of distress, I didn't think to check the logs before atleast 2 or 3 XBMC restarts later - thus at that point there were no log to check anymore.
(2014-05-11, 05:59)pr0xZen Wrote: [ -> ]I really miss this in XBMC (win). There should be an optional query->timeout setting. I've got both a "proper" NAS and a "USB NAS" (USB network unit serving multiple USB drives). While the NAS is quick to respond, the "USB NAS" still has to do usb drive spinup (some are rather slow) - and at one instance a drive was "too slow" and all within was marked as "gone". (In my case meta and art was intact so a refresh solved this others might not be as lucky).
If XBMC had a "max. response time" for non-local sources - this could possibly avoid quite a few library rebuilds. My personal storage solution might not be the most typical one, but this remote spinup/wakeup latency "limit" is something they should extend to XBMC, not just OE (if tecnically feasable). Or atleast, throw in a "Source unreachable - remove/ignore?" pop-up. I do believe it exist for "local external" (USB etc) sources, but not remote locations. Some users do WOL on remote networks - the waiting game adds up. I guess this probably belong in the "Feature request" section - but just airing it.
While it isn't a max timeout setting, one of the things
announced as part of the Gotham release was XBMC will send a WoL request to sleeping servers to ensure content isn't unnecessarily cleaned.
Quote:- When initiating a library cleaning, XBMC will send a wake-on-lan request to any sleeping servers first, before cleaning the library, to ensure that content isn’t unnecessarily cleaned
I don't use the XBMC cleaning features for exactly the reason you mentioned... in the past I had a bad experience where one of my disks was unavailable and XBMC removed all the content for that disk. I use a centralized MySQL instance, so I rolled back to a relatively recent database backup but it would be nice to see some improvements to the cleaning features.
(2014-05-12, 03:48)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-09, 14:40)pszab Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-07, 02:53)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ]The 2820 NUC is a step below a RaspberryPI/Ouya in my opinion. maybe the NUC i3s are more robust my coworkers like using them for ESXi. I am thinking about RMAing mine and praying I will get a 2830 back. I suspect the NUCs are flawed from manufacturing. I gotta say I am impressed with intel for releasing windows 7 drivers finally. maybe the 2830 will fix the outstanding issues. I have my fingers crossed that BIOS 32 will fix my problems.
What kind of issues are fixed in nuc 2830?
I've read that some issues were but I don't know about them.
I don't know if the 2830 is out yet. I suspect all the firmware and UEFI bios issues will be corrected.
I just upgraded to bios 32 and my 2820 can't post or boot windows 8.
I updated both of my 2820s to bios 32 with no issue running Win 8.1 Pro on both.
According to Intel there is no such thing as a 2830, they are just keeping the same 2820 product name/number and utilizing a different part number and SKU. God help us from the wonderful world of Intel ostrich world.
(2014-05-12, 20:18)visiter555 Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 03:48)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-09, 14:40)pszab Wrote: [ -> ]What kind of issues are fixed in nuc 2830?
I've read that some issues were but I don't know about them.
I don't know if the 2830 is out yet. I suspect all the firmware and UEFI bios issues will be corrected.
I just upgraded to bios 32 and my 2820 can't post or boot windows 8.
I updated both of my 2820s to bios 32 with no issue running Win 8.1 Pro on both.
According to Intel there is no such thing as a 2830, they are just keeping the same 2820 product name/number and utilizing a different part number and SKU. God help us from the wonderful world of Intel ostrich world.
It gets better. If you buy one online, you can't guarantee it'll be a 2830 SKU model!
Same as the 1st gen 847's with the missing internal USB header. It'll be a gamble what you get.
Personally, I can't fault my 2820 runnin oE 4.0! Works perfect!
(2014-05-12, 21:26)jammyb Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 20:18)visiter555 Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 03:48)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if the 2830 is out yet. I suspect all the firmware and UEFI bios issues will be corrected.
I just upgraded to bios 32 and my 2820 can't post or boot windows 8.
I updated both of my 2820s to bios 32 with no issue running Win 8.1 Pro on both.
According to Intel there is no such thing as a 2830, they are just keeping the same 2820 product name/number and utilizing a different part number and SKU. God help us from the wonderful world of Intel ostrich world.
It gets better. If you buy one online, you can't guarantee it'll be a 2830 SKU model!
Same as the 1st gen 847's with the missing internal USB header. It'll be a gamble what you get.
Personally, I can't fault my 2820 runnin oE 4.0! Works perfect!
Trying mine now ....setting it up...
Wrong thread, sorry, please ignore.
(2014-05-12, 21:26)jammyb Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 20:18)visiter555 Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 03:48)SgtSlaughter Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if the 2830 is out yet. I suspect all the firmware and UEFI bios issues will be corrected.
I just upgraded to bios 32 and my 2820 can't post or boot windows 8.
I updated both of my 2820s to bios 32 with no issue running Win 8.1 Pro on both.
According to Intel there is no such thing as a 2830, they are just keeping the same 2820 product name/number and utilizing a different part number and SKU. God help us from the wonderful world of Intel ostrich world.
It gets better. If you buy one online, you can't guarantee it'll be a 2830 SKU model!
Same as the 1st gen 847's with the missing internal USB header. It'll be a gamble what you get.
Personally, I can't fault my 2820 runnin oE 4.0! Works perfect!
You could email the company and ask them the SA version.
You’ll be able to identify the difference between them by the SA# on the label on the bottom of the chassis and the barcode label on the box.
Old N2820 version: SA H22962-100, H22962-101, and H22962-102
New N2830 version: SA H22962-103 and later
(2014-05-12, 18:33)joshua.lyon Wrote: [ -> ]While it isn't a max timeout setting, one of the things announced as part of the Gotham release was XBMC will send a WoL request to sleeping servers to ensure content isn't unnecessarily cleaned.
Actually that's a bit of a mistake/mixup of two different features. One is that XBMC will check to see if a source is offline when it can't access a specific file, and it won't remove the library entry if it thinks the entire source is offline. The other is a separate
wake on lan (wiki) feature that can be turned on (off by default).
(2014-05-13, 02:29)mhaaland Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 21:26)jammyb Wrote: [ -> ] (2014-05-12, 20:18)visiter555 Wrote: [ -> ]I updated both of my 2820s to bios 32 with no issue running Win 8.1 Pro on both.
According to Intel there is no such thing as a 2830, they are just keeping the same 2820 product name/number and utilizing a different part number and SKU. God help us from the wonderful world of Intel ostrich world.
It gets better. If you buy one online, you can't guarantee it'll be a 2830 SKU model!
Same as the 1st gen 847's with the missing internal USB header. It'll be a gamble what you get.
Personally, I can't fault my 2820 runnin oE 4.0! Works perfect!
You could email the company and ask them the SA version.
You’ll be able to identify the difference between them by the SA# on the label on the bottom of the chassis and the barcode label on the box.
Old N2820 version: SA H22962-100, H22962-101, and H22962-102
New N2830 version: SA H22962-103 and later
Mate, tried that. Ebuyer were just like "say, whut?" Intel should swap it out if you can prove you bought it after the release of 2830 and wanted a 2830 in the first place.
As I said, plugged it in. Updated bios and installed oE. Everything works spot on.
The icing on the cake would be if XBMC adopted a plex media server style library setup / or even a server headless program. Not the transcoding part. Just the library maintenance part. I don't like MySQL. Hopeful for XBMC's uPNP move!
(2014-05-13, 09:00)jammyb Wrote: [ -> ]The icing on the cake would be if XBMC adopted a plex media server style library setup / or even a server headless program. Not the transcoding part. Just the library maintenance part. I don't like MySQL. Hopeful for XBMC's uPNP move!
what has this to do with NUC?
So even though I thought it was fixed, I'm still having intermittent wifi issues with openelec 4.0 and the 2820. Proximity to the router doesn't seem to be an issue, and I can't tell when the problem is going to occur. It's shown as connected within the xbmc menu, but I can't see it on the network, can't use the Android remote with it, can't ssh in with putty, etc.
Reinke, has your problem persisted in 3.95, or is wifi working consistently there? I'd feel better if I knew this wasn't a hardware issue. Anyone else seen this problem, or am I one of the few people on the thread without a wired network?