not long at all, 4 right now. I also notices that adding one entry from the GUI it doesn't retain it either. Odd ball issue with my router ?How long is your list? The RT-AC86U and newer models have smaller size limitations than previous models.
Nope, my old one died so I set this up from scratch.Did you import settings to set it up?
not long at all, 4 right now. I also notices that adding one entry from the GUI it doesn't retain it either. Odd ball issue with my router ?
df -h /jffs
not long at all, 4 right now. I also notices that adding one entry from the GUI it doesn't retain it either. Odd ball issue with my router ?
Please excuse "dummy" question ... but I have never understood why static addresses are "reserved" within the DHCP range of the server?
I have always simply started the DHCP Server range at say . . . 50 through to 200 ... and then assigned static addresses on the client devices outside that range [...1 through to ...49 and ...201 through to 254].
Which firmware you have installed? I have this same issue with latest Merlin beta installed, though I managed to solve it. Firstly, I assigned static addresses and rebooted router - all gone. Then I tried second time, but I only assigned one address instead of full list - wanted to make sure it works - rebooted and it worked - that single record was retained. Then I entered the rest addresses, saved, rebooted - all records were retained.
To me this issue is only with latest alphas or beta version, it is never a problem if I’d go back to 384.17 firmware. Clean install never helped, only second, third reboot.
I use nordvpn and some devices need to be explicitly able to bypass it as well as be able to use DHCP. Also some smart switches I have only use DHCP and for automation needs I need the IP address to be the same so I don't have to reconfigure things constantly.
I don't think this is a dumb question at all. The heading is "Manually assigned IP around the DHCP list", which implies, as you suggest, that the static addresses should not be in the DHCP range. But I don't think it matters whether the IP is in or out of the range.Please excuse "dummy" question ... but I have never understood why static addresses are "reserved" within the DHCP range of the server?
I have always simply started the DHCP Server range at say . . . 50 through to 200 ... and then assigned static addresses on the client devices outside that range [...1 through to ...49 and ...201 through to 254].
admin@RT-AX88U-27B8:/tmp/home/root# du -h /jffs
0 /jffs/scripts
3.5K /jffs/.le/[REDACTED].asuscomm.com/backup
25.0K /jffs/.le/[REDACTED].asuscomm.com
27.5K /jffs/.le
17.0K /jffs/addons/amtm/a_fw
17.5K /jffs/addons/amtm
17.5K /jffs/addons
997.0K /jffs/signature
0 /jffs/configs
22.5K /jffs/usericon
12.0K /jffs/nvram
1.5K /jffs/.sys/cfg_mnt
165.1M /jffs/.sys/TrafficAnalyzer
14.8M /jffs/.sys/nc
0 /jffs/.sys/diag_db
179.9M /jffs/.sys
2.5K /jffs/.cert
180.9M /jffs
Please excuse "dummy" question ... but I have never understood why static addresses are "reserved" within the DHCP range of the server?
I have always simply started the DHCP Server range at say . . . 50 through to 200 ... and then assigned static addresses on the client devices outside that range [...1 through to ...49 and ...201 through to 254].
I don't think this is a dumb question at all. The heading is "Manually assigned IP around the DHCP list", which implies, as you suggest, that the static addresses should not be in the DHCP range. But I don't think it matters whether the IP is in or out of the range.
RMerlin, I honestly had no idea this was running the whole time and I wonder if many are in the same boat. Do you have suggestions for purging this periodically? If I turn off TrafficAnalyzer will it clear out automatically?
TrafficAnalyzer -d 30720
TrafficAnalyzer -e
Yes, "around", as in "see you around", not "around", as in "you've got to go around".It's not "around the DHCP list", it's "within the DHCP scope".
It's supposed to be monitored every hour, and automatically truncated at 30 MB. If it isn't, then it's a bug in Asus's monitoring/purging code, and is outside of my control.
You can manually do the purge process by running these two commands:
Code:TrafficAnalyzer -d 30720 TrafficAnalyzer -e
admin@RT-AX88U-27B8:/tmp/home/root# TrafficAnalyzer -d 30720
table_main-1: over size 30720, timestamp=1590998400
start to delete some rules from /jffs/.sys/TrafficAnalyzer/TrafficAnalyzer.db because of over size
SQL error: disk I/O error
admin@RT-AX88U-27B8:/tmp/home/root# TrafficAnalyzer -e
rm /jffs/.sys/TrafficAnalyzer/*
/usr/sbin/TrafficAnalyzer -e
[...router is busy for ~10 seconds...]
admin@RT-AX88U-27B8:/tmp/home/root#
It didn't work, so I deleted the whole database and flushed traffic data in RAM to disk.
Probably because the partition was already full.
Welcome To SNBForums
SNBForums is a community for anyone who wants to learn about or discuss the latest in wireless routers, network storage and the ins and outs of building and maintaining a small network.
If you'd like to post a question, simply register and have at it!
While you're at it, please check out SmallNetBuilder for product reviews and our famous Router Charts, Ranker and plenty more!