FREE CompTIA Certification starting August 11

[ilovetheusers]

Ok, I guess I must be high on drugs because this doesn't make any sense. Either that or you guys didn't read Pinnacle's scenario very closely. Or making you're just fucking with me? I have so many questions. First, what does diagnosing a hard drive have to do with the scenario Pinnacle described? Second, why would it be weird to look for unplugged cables in that scenario? Raising the white flag. I give up! What's the correct answer oh mighty know-everything-ceebee?

Well, I started by looking at what he quoted, thinking it was a discussion about HDD's.

Still, 1st step in checking net connection on a Desktop PC is to sit down, ensure networking is on, ipconfig /all or look at the gui settings to see if the port is up or even if it uses a cable. Then dig under the desk and look to see if the cable is attached and inspect it. I've seen tons of computers where someone, or just windows being stupid far more than someone unplugged or broke the cable. So, I do a quick exam f the PC, then the cable, then the switch room. Just how I did it, I'm too fat to crawl under desks and too allergy ridden to dig through dust 1st thing.

A lot of my lappy users used wifi, so the issue was there (and then I would have a cable run for them as their boss forgot to ask for it when they 1st joined the company... If they had a cradle I'd patch it in for them, but I'd diagnose how it connected 1st. A lot of folks had issues with their lenovo lappy software that was just some god awful trash and it would manage their connections and our desktop guys never configured it right ever so I had to fix hundreds of their mistakes and demand a corrected image, etc.

But, in general, I look for issues with the PC before I look at the cable.

Also, IMO CeeBee is actually using a correct analogy for a change. It's more apples to pears than oranges. The point is, yes physical layer is something you do check and rather quickly with networking, but not as much today. In the past it was the direct route to seeing if Win95 needed the network stack rebuilt (IS THE ORANGE AND OR GREEN LIGHT ON THE BACK OF YOUR MODEMHARDDRIVERECORDPLAYER part miss??), but with decent tools added to the OS, no need to go crawling since win 2000 or XP. IMO.

[74AD]

Because you are plain wrong. We are not talking about a "my monitor is black" kind of issue - and even then you first press the power button and then check the power cable. Hell if the user reports that the optical drive doesn't read any CD you don't take apart the machine and mess with cables first, you check if the drive is visible to the machine (does it show in OS? nope.. does it show in BIOS? yes -> OS related... does it show in OS? yes, can you boot from a CD? no -> faulty drive or dirty lens).
What happened to critical thinking??? Really, WHY would you check a cable if you don't have any direct indication that it may be at fault? Sure, you can eliminate a potential issue, but it is just a link in a chain you haven't even started to explore.
Divide et impera.

yes. Always start from a place that offers you the best information to solve the problem. If someone calls with network problems the place that gives me the most information to find a solution is ipconfig / all not checking to see if their cable is connected because I can get that information from that command as well as a bunch of other useful data which will be handy if ipconfig /all shows me the link is indeed good.

[ilovetheusers]

What if their keyboard is disconnected and they don't realize it?

Yeah but if the keyboard or mouse isn't working, that's an instant check as they get loose or die and nothing in between for the most part. If you're talking networking from 2000, then hells yeah look at that cable 1st, but today you don't have to have Madge from accounting crawl under her desk to check a connection 1st. I was rarely field, so maybe being that is different. You're right there and if you are working on one of thhose all in one PC's then maybe it's not a bad idea, easy enough.

[Webhead]

and there's the problem. Being disagreed with and proven wrong is "being shit on" according to you. I get it. you can't handle being wrong; you can't handle being disagreed with, but if you look at what I posted, which was purely technical explanation of why I agreed with Ceebee and how you responded to it, I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one being a defensive douche and shitting on anybody.

Proven wrong about what exactly? I said to check the cable first. Why is that such a big problem for you guys? That's how I would do it. That was the practice taught in the Cisco and Solaris courses. That's what I've been doing for the last 20 years. If you have no connectivity from anything, it's not unreasonable and actually very practical to just take quick look at the fuckin cable. This is NOT that big of a deal. You might have a different way. If you want to sit down and type out some commands to check, then fine. Go ahead. I'm not saying not to. And I'm not saying I don't do that. It might not necessarily be the first thing I do. Or maybe it could be. It all depends on the specific situation. Doesn't mean you or I are right or wrong. It just means two different people have two different ways. But if you have to be right, then ok... you can be right. Whatever makes you feel better buddy. Geez.

[Webhead]

Yeah but if the keyboard or mouse isn't working, that's an instant check as they get loose or die and nothing in between for the most part. If you're talking networking from 2000, then hells yeah look at that cable 1st, but today you don't have to have Madge from accounting crawl under her desk to check a connection 1st. I was rarely field, so maybe being that is different. You're right there and if you are working on one of thhose all in one PC's then maybe it's not a bad idea, easy enough.

LOL. Now I have this vision of Madge from accounting crawling around checking cables.

Funny thing,... when I first posted earlier, I never in my wildest imagination ever thought I'd be sitting here still discussing my thought about checking the cable first. Just seems kinda normal in anything that requires a connection that has lost it's connection to check the physical cable that connects the two things. But boy what a stupid idea that turned out to be! LOL. All the nerds want to get right on the command prompt and start executing their 1337 skill0rz. Ok fine. Go ahead. Geez. Whatever everyone needs to do.

*webhead slowly backs out of the room full of angry nerds who will crush him if he ever mentions checking the cable again. How dare he!

[Webhead]

Yes, experience is very important.

I interview a lot of people as part of my current position. During each interview I ask them how they would fix a scenario I describe. In summary, the scenario is a user cannot get to any Internet site, cannot send/receive e-mail with Microsoft Outlook, and cannot print to a network printer. I show them a basic desktop in the office and ask them how they would troubleshoot the issue.

I am always amazed by the new grads from ITT Tech who overlook the obvious (disconnected or damaged network cable) and instead tell me to flush the DNS and troubleshoot TCP/IP.

After hearing their guesses I tell them that any problem may have countless different fixes but a technician should explore possibilities in order of what is most likely. Knowing what is most likely comes from experience. As much as I like the A+ certification, I completely agree that experience is important too.

Just, whatever you do, if they mention anything about checking the cable first, you better boot them right out of there immediately! Check the cable first,... HA!! Good one.

[CeeBee]

Just seems kinda normal in anything that requires a connection that has lost it's connection to check the physical cable that connects the two things.

Because there is no chance in hell that the DHCP has failed or a port on the switch has failed and is mangling the data or the accountant has just plugged in his laptop with a static IP and created a conflict yanking the machine offline or the firewall has decided that traffic is bad or the user has mistakenly connected his VPN and all traffic to the local network is blocked or a user decided to plug in his home router to have both the laptop and the desktop wired and the DHCP on the router is handing out bad IP's...

[Webhead]

Because there is no chance in hell that the DHCP has failed or a port on the switch has failed and is mangling the data or the accountant has just plugged in his laptop with a static IP and created a conflict yanking the machine offline or the firewall has decided that traffic is bad or the user has mistakenly connected his VPN and all traffic to the local network is blocked or a user decided to plug in his home router to have both the laptop and the desktop wired and the DHCP on the router is handing out bad IP's...

So I decided that instead of me trying to defend myself in this trivial debate, I figured I'd pass along the info that I've learned and you can do with it whatever you want.

First, here's a link for reference: http://www.pearsonitcertification.co...aspx?p=1730891

What you need to understand is that when you go through the Cisco training, they emphasize the OSI model very heavily. You can debate that all you want or you can start talking about the TCP/IP model if you'd rather go by that,... whatever. It all doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that when you go through the Cisco training, you will soon realize that they recommend to start at the physical layer. Here...

Due to the dependence of the high-layers to the lower-layers, it is recommended to start troubleshooting at Layer 1 and then moving up the OSI stack.

I know what you are thinking. You are about to either discredit/dismiss the site I linked, or Cisco or something else completely. And you know what? I don't care. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm only telling you what they teach and what is taught. The site I linked is simply repeating what Cisco says to do. This is what thousands of potential administrators are learning to do every day.

But who cares about what it taught in a book? Let's go with real-world experience instead right? I agree. So I had about 4 instructors who taught 4 courses on this. They are all CCNP's and I think one was even a CCIE. They all worked for Cisco during the day and taught the evening classes at night and on the weekends. And guess what they all taught? They all taught to troubleshoot starting with the physical layer.

Even more: This goes way back to my Solaris training. Guess what the message there was. Yup. Same thing! Physical layer first. And guess what the final exam was? It was to troubleshoot network connectivity. That was it. All we had to do was show up, troubleshoot and make it work. He only did one simple change. In that case it was not a cable problem. In fact, I forget what it was. He made one minor change in one of the text files. But anyway, first thing that I did was check the cable, the NIC and then I went on to type in ifconfig -a. That's how we were taught to do it. And it went on from there but the point is that we started with the cable and the NIC.

Now if you don't agree with any of this, then that is your prerogative. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. And if your troubleshooting methods are better than this, then that is great. As long as you achieve the end result of connectivity, then that's all that matters. But I will tell you, a big mistake people make is trying to baffle people with their bullshit. KISS. That is my motto.

[CeeBee]

They all worked for Cisco during the day and taught the evening classes at night and on the weekends. And guess what they all taught? They all taught to troubleshoot starting with the physical layer.

Computers aren't routers. Nobody touches a router. If a router stops working it's because there is a hardware failure or someone has intentionally changed the configuration. A half-decent router will reboot if it locks up and normal operation will resume. OK, the home variety may just sit there unresponsive, in which case the first step is to power-cycle.
And speaking of troubleshooting with the physical layer first, an IPCONFIG will positively show the status - unlike the link LED. You can very well have a link that is up but no communication because the chip is locked - effectively having an interface that is down although the physical link is up.

[ilovetheusers]

LOL. Now I have this vision of Madge from accounting crawling around checking cables.

Funny thing,... when I first posted earlier, I never in my wildest imagination ever thought I'd be sitting here still discussing my thought about checking the cable first. Just seems kinda normal in anything that requires a connection that has lost it's connection to check the physical cable that connects the two things. But boy what a stupid idea that turned out to be! LOL. All the nerds want to get right on the command prompt and start executing their 1337 skill0rz. Ok fine. Go ahead. Geez. Whatever everyone needs to do.

*webhead slowly backs out of the room full of angry nerds who will crush him if he ever mentions checking the cable again. How dare he!

We are techs, we know everything and everyone must know that we know everything and we honestly don't mean anything by it. Remember how you called me Sheldon once? Kind of like that maybe?