ProScan: Official Software Thread

[ProScan]

ProScan Version 1.7 Build 2 includes the RadioReference Imports feature, improved Scanner Over IP, and bug fixes.

Supported scanners are the BCD996T, BC796D, BC785D, BC780XLT, BC296D, and the BC250D.

I'm thriving to make this the best Computer Aided Scanning program and suggestions are very much appreciated.

http://www.proscan.org/index.htm

Bob

 

[Rotorhead124]

I'm thinking about hooking it directly to the PC, but I guess I would have to run a DHCP on the PC.

 

[ProScan]

Any wireless involved on the 192.168.2.xxx segment?

Yes

Perhaps WiFi interference. Try relocating the WiFi connected device , change WiFi channels, and use an app to measure the interference.

 

[03msc]

Well, it seems like I have it hitting the pings more often than not now. There is a lot of traffic on my network. I had made an IP reservation for 192.168.2.200 for the scanner, and it never once picked that up from the DHCP. DHCP did nothing. When I set a fixed IP of 192.168.2.200 on the scanner, I was getting nowhere, until I released the reservation. Even then it was missing more than hitting. So now that I have set it to fixed on the SDS200 at 192.168.2.5 it seems to be much better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm assuming .200 wasn't outside of your .2. subnet range? Like if you had it setup to have fewer available or something. If that's possible.

Hopefully with it at .2.5 it'll continue to work. I think you would just want to set it to a static IP on the network side so that the scanner will just always grab .2.5 if/when it reconnects.

 

[Rotorhead124]

No .200 was inside. I'm trying to work on connecting directly to the PC running Proscan to skip at the switches. My PC has a spare E-Net port

 

[ra7850]

The ping hits about one time out of 15. the rest are timed out. I wonder if the LAN port on the SDS200 is borked

Bad cables, or ends on the cable.

 

[Rotorhead124]

Not thinking so. Working on some better networking options

 

[ra7850]

Not thinking so. Working on some better networking options

Ping is not intermittent unless there is a bad end. The fact that it worked once eliminates any software, ie windows firewall issues from the problem. It also eliminates any issues of VPN, or lan/network segment as the cause. It could be also still be a faulty RJ45 jack on the scanner itself.

As a test, plug the ethernet cable from the scanner directly into the pc/laptop, assign an ip address as follows in the laptop. If the device has another connection to the internet, that will still work. If you use the settings below you will not need a DHCP IP address assigned to the device or scanner.

PC - 169.254.99.1
Subnet mask - 255.255.255.0
No gateway IP or DNS address is needed

Scanner - 169.254.99.2
Subnet mask 255.255.255.0
No gateway IP or DNS address is needed

 

[ndebaggis]

No .200 was inside. I'm trying to work on connecting directly to the PC running Proscan to skip at the switches. My PC has a spare E-Net port

You can do that. Just CAT-6 directly from the SDS to the extra ethernet port on the PC. Manually assign the IP to each end, be sure those IPs and netmasks are NOT anything you currently have running on your network:

SDS: IP 10.20.0.2, MASK: 255.255.255.0, NO GATEWAY, NO DNS.
PC: IP 10.20.0.1, MASK 255.255.255.0, NO GATEWAY, NO DNS.

That will get them talking directly to each other, however, the SDS will not have access to anything else on your LAN/s or the Internet. That setup will at least help isolate any issues related directly to the SDS ethernet port. Also, if your switches are managed they might have good diagnostic info related to port errors, drops, mismatched duplex, etc. Does the SDS 200 ethernet support gigabit speed and full duplex operation? just curious...

 

[03msc]

OK, yeah I'm no networking expert but I was throwing out all options I could think of as potential problems. Follow their steps above (well, pick one IP range, of course) and see how it goes. Hopefully you'll hit on a solution at some point.

 

[Rotorhead124]

You can do that. Just CAT-6 directly from the SDS to the extra ethernet port on the PC. Manually assign the IP to each end, be sure those IPs and netmasks are NOT anything you currently have running on your network:

SDS: IP 10.20.0.2, MASK: 255.255.255.0, NO GATEWAY, NO DNS.
PC: IP 10.20.0.1, MASK 255.255.255.0, NO GATEWAY, NO DNS.

That will get them talking directly to each other, however, the SDS will not have access to anything else on your LAN/s or the Internet. That setup will at least help isolate any issues related directly to the SDS ethernet port. Also, if your switches are managed they might have good diagnostic info related to port errors, drops, mismatched duplex, etc. Does the SDS 200 ethernet support gigabit speed and full duplex operation? just curious...

The SDS insists on having something as a gateway. At the moment, I have 0.0.0.0, but I'm not sure if that isn't messing things up.

 

[ndebaggis]

The SDS insists on having something as a gateway. At the moment, I have 0.0.0.0, but I'm not sure if that isn't messing things up.

You could try using the PC IP 10.20.0.1 for the SDS's gateway then, assuming that's what you assigned it. Leave the PC's gateway blank though. The SDS should ignore the gateway anyhow since both are on the same LAN directly connected.

 

[Rotorhead124]

You could try using the PC IP 10.20.0.1 for the SDS's gateway then, assuming that's what you assigned it. Leave the PC's gateway blank though. The SDS should ignore the gateway anyhow since both are on the same LAN directly connected.

I'm now wondering if the SDS will only connect like this with a crossover cable.

 

[kruser]

I'm now wondering if the SDS will only connect like this with a crossover cable.

I've seen some recently made IoT things that don't have auto crossover detection/correction so that could be a possibility.
If the LEDs on the SDS200 LAN part light up correctly, should indicate the cable is wired correctly though.
If you have a crossover cable, it would be nice to see if it works as well as a normal CAT6 cable just for your sanity and if anyone Google's the same subject.

 

[Rotorhead124]

I'm just about to try some Cat 8

 

[Rotorhead124]

I've seen some recently made IoT things that don't have auto crossover detection/correction so that could be a possibility.
If the LEDs on the SDS200 LAN part light up correctly, should indicate the cable is wired correctly though.
If you have a crossover cable, it would be nice to see if it works as well as a normal CAT6 cable just for your sanity and if anyone Google's the same subject.

This is the best yet with Cat-8 cable. But I'm still mystified by the timeouts. With Cat-6e I was getting 87% loss

 

[Rotorhead124]

Now 14% loss. Is the TCP/IP software in the SDS200 flaky?

 

[kruser]

Now 14% loss. Is the TCP/IP software in the SDS200 flaky?

Do you have another computer you can test using the same ping command?
Just trying to rule out something odd with the NIC in the computer you're using now for this test.

I doubt the network stack in the SDS200 is really flaky. I'd think there would be a ton of posts on the subject if so.

edit: you may want to see if a mod can move your messages on this topic to a new post as I don't think this problem has anything to do with ProScan.

 

[ndebaggis]

Now 14% loss. Is the TCP/IP software in the SDS200 flaky?View attachment 164128

It could be either or possibly both sides. Net drivers can be quite buggy depending on the hardware, age, driver version, etc. If you have another PC or laptop you might try the same setup just to eliminate the current PC as the culprit. That would leave the SDS hardware and/or firmware. Windows itself does some flakey network stuff but it typically doesn't affect a directly connected ping like that.

 

[Rotorhead124]

Even on a longer test, I still get a 10% loss, and some packets taking 31ms to cross a piece of wire is a bit poor. I will switch the NICs

 

[kruser]

Even on a longer test, I still get a 10% loss, and some packets taking 31ms to cross a piece of wire is a bit poor. I will switch the NICs

I see frequent pings of up to 30ms when running a constant ping to my SDS200 or a wireless 536HP. The majority of my pings are <1ms though but every 20 or so pings, I will see a slightly delayed ping anywhere between 1ms and 30ms.

I figure the processor in these scanners doesn't give the network stack much priority which will cause a slight delay in some pings while the scanner is busy processing something else.
I never see totally missed pings though. Even with my two wireless 536HP models which use those cheap dongles Uniden supplied when they came out.