Same on my server. Current version in all three branches is 3.2.005-42-g0e8f7306. Commit offset 42 because my builds are from spiram-fix-test. Regards, Michael Am 25.09.19 um 14:14 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
OK. I released v3.2.005 to general release. Both EAP and MAIN now have that version.
Regards, Mark
On 25 Sep 2019, at 3:31 PM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> wrote:
Mark,
go ahead, I'll follow. I don't have any bad reports from edge or eap.
Regards, Michael
Am 25.09.19 um 03:47 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
This is what I have (api.openvehicles.com <http://api.openvehicles.com/>):
==> eap/ovms3.ver <== 3.2.005 Tue Sep 19 08:00:00 UTC 2019 OTA release
==> edge/ovms3.ver <== 3.2.005-1-g7f86e9c Thu Sep 19 16:01:18 UTC 2019 Automated build (markhk8)
==> main/ovms3.ver <== 3.2.002 Sun May 12 08:00:00 UTC 2019 OTA release
The 3.2.005 seems stable, so I think it can now go eap->main.
@Michael: Should we co-ordinate and do this later today, or have you already released 3.2.005 to main?
Regards, Mark.
On 25 Sep 2019, at 2:21 AM, Bernd Geistert <b_ghosti@gmx.de <mailto:b_ghosti@gmx.de>> wrote:
IMHO, currently: - in MAIN is 3.2.002 - in EAP is 3.2.003 - in EDGE is 3.2.005-1-g7f86e9c
Am 19.09.2019 um 10:22 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
OK, I’ve built:
2019-09-19 MWJ 3.2.005 OTA release - Default module/debug.tasks to FALSE Users that volunteer to submit tasks debug historical data to the Open Vehicles project, should (with appreciation) set: config set module debug.tasks yes This will be transmit approximately 700MB of data a month (over cellular/wifi).
2019-09-19 MWJ 3.2.004 OTA release - Skipped for Chinese superstitous reasons
In EAP now, and I will announce.
Regards, Mark.
On 19 Sep 2019, at 3:34 PM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> wrote:
Correct.
Regards, Michael
Am 19.09.19 um 09:29 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson: > I’m just worried about the users who don’t know about this new feature. When they deploy this version, they suddenly start sending 6MB of data a month > up to us. > > I think the ‘fix’ is just to change ovms_module.c: > > MyConfig.GetParamValueBool("module", "debug.tasks", true) > > to > > MyConfig.GetParamValueBool("module", "debug.tasks", false) > > > That would then only submit these logs for those that explicitly turn it on? > > Regards, Mark. > >> On 19 Sep 2019, at 3:23 PM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I didn't think about this being an issue elsewhere -- german data plans typically start at minimum 100 MB/month flat (that's my current plan at >> 3 € / month). >> >> No need for a new release, it can be turned off OTA by issueing >> >> config set module debug.tasks no >> >> Regards, >> Michael >> >> >> Am 19.09.19 um 09:08 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson: >>> Yep: >>> >>> 758 bytes * (86400 / 300) * 30 = 6.5MB/month >>> >>> >>> That is going over data (not SD). Presumably cellular data for a large portion of the time. >>> >>> I think we need to default this to OFF, and make a 3.2.004 to avoid this becoming an issue. >>> >>> Regards, Mark. >>> >>>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org <mailto:casner@acm.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> That's 6.55MB/month, unless you have unusually short months! :-) >>>> >>>> In what space is that data stored? A log written to SD? That's not >>>> likely to fill up the SD card too fast, but what happens if no SD card >>>> is installed? >>>> >>>> -- Steve >>>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Mark Webb-Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>>> To enable CPU usage statistics, apply the changes to sdkconfig >>>>>> included. >>>>>> New history record: >>>>>> - "*-OVM-DebugTasks" v1: <taskcnt,totaltime> + per task: >>>>>> <tasknum,name,state,stack_now,stack_max,stack_total, >>>>>> heap_total,heap_32bit,heap_spi,runtime> >>>>>> Note: CPU core use percentage = runtime / totaltime >>>>> >>>>> I’ve just noticed that this is enabled by default now (my production build has the sdkconfig updated, as per defaults). >>>>> >>>>> I am seeing 758 bytes of history record, every 5 minutes. About 218KB/day, or 654KB/month. >>>>> >>>>> Should this be opt-in? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Mark. >>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 5:43 PM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've pushed some modifications and improvements to (hopefully) fix the timer issue or at least be able to debug it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some sdkconfig changes are necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> The build including these updates is on my edge release as 3.2.002-258-g20ae554b. >>>>>> >>>>>> Btw: the network restart strategy seems to mitigate issue #241; I've seen a major drop on record repetitions on my server since the rollout. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 99e4e48bdd40b7004c0976f51aba9e3da4ecab53 >>>>>> >>>>>> Module: add per task CPU usage statistics, add task stats history records >>>>>> >>>>>> To enable CPU usage statistics, apply the changes to sdkconfig >>>>>> included. The CPU usage shown by the commands is calculated against >>>>>> the last task status retrieved (or system boot). >>>>>> >>>>>> Command changes: >>>>>> - "module tasks" -- added CPU (core) usage in percent per task >>>>>> >>>>>> New command: >>>>>> - "module tasks data" -- output task stats in history record form >>>>>> >>>>>> New config: >>>>>> - [module] debug.tasks -- yes (default) = send task stats every 5 minutes >>>>>> >>>>>> New history record: >>>>>> - "*-OVM-DebugTasks" v1: <taskcnt,totaltime> + per task: >>>>>> <tasknum,name,state,stack_now,stack_max,stack_total, >>>>>> heap_total,heap_32bit,heap_spi,runtime> >>>>>> Note: CPU core use percentage = runtime / totaltime >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 950172c216a72beb4da0bc7a40a46995a6105955 >>>>>> >>>>>> Build config: default timer service task priority raised to 20 >>>>>> >>>>>> Background: the FreeRTOS timer service shall only be used for very >>>>>> short and non-blocking jobs. We delegate event processing to our >>>>>> events task, anything else in timers needs to run with high >>>>>> priority. >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 31ac19d187480046c16356b80668de45cacbb83d >>>>>> >>>>>> DukTape: add build config for task priority, default lowered to 3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Background: the DukTape garbage collector shall run on lower >>>>>> priority than tasks like SIMCOM & events >>>>>> >>>>>> commit e0a44791fbcfb5a4e4cad24c9d1163b76e637b4f >>>>>> >>>>>> Server V2: use esp_log_timestamp for timeout detection, >>>>>> add timeout config, limit data records & size per second >>>>>> >>>>>> New config: >>>>>> - [server.v2] timeout.rx -- timeout in seconds, default 960 >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 684a4ce9525175a910040f0d1ca82ac212fbf5de >>>>>> >>>>>> Notify: use esp_log_timestamp for creation time instead of monotonictime >>>>>> to harden against timer service starvation / ticker event drops >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 07.09.19 um 10:55 schrieb Michael Balzer: >>>>>>> I think the RTOS timer service task starves. It's running on core 0 with priority 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taks on core 0 sorted by priority: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Number of Tasks = 20 Stack: Now Max Total Heap 32-bit SPIRAM C# PRI >>>>>>> 3FFC84A8 6 Blk ipc0 388 500 1024 7788 0 0 0 24 >>>>>>> 3FFC77F0 5 Blk OVMS CanRx 428 428 2048 3052 0 31844 0 23 >>>>>>> 3FFAFBF4 1 Blk esp_timer 400 656 4096 35928 644 25804 0 22 >>>>>>> 3FFD3240 19 Blk wifi 460 2716 3584 43720 0 20 0 22 >>>>>>> 3FFC03C4 2 Blk eventTask 448 1984 4608 104 0 0 0 20 >>>>>>> 3FFC8F14 17 Blk tiT 500 2308 3072 6552 0 0 * 18 >>>>>>> 3FFE14F0 26 Blk OVMS COrx 456 456 4096 0 0 0 0 7 >>>>>>> 3FFE19D4 27 Blk OVMS COwrk 476 476 3072 0 0 0 0 7 >>>>>>> 3FFCBC34 12 Blk Tmr Svc 352 928 3072 88 0 0 0 1 >>>>>>> 3FFE7708 23 Blk mdns 468 1396 4096 108 0 0 0 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it's our CanRx, as that only fetches and queues CAN frames, the actual work is done by the listeners. The CO tasks only run for >>>>>>> CANopen jobs, which are few for normal operation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That leaves the system tasks, with main suspect -once again- the wifi blob. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to know how much CPU time the tasks actually use now. I think I saw some option for this in the FreeRTOS config. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 06.09.19 um 23:15 schrieb Michael Balzer: >>>>>>>> The workaround is based on the monotonictime being updated per second, as do the history record offsets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently, that mechanism doesn't work reliably. That may be an indicator for some bigger underlying issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Example log excerpt: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:07:48.126919 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,0,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:03.089031 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-10,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:05.041574 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-20,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:05.052644 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-30,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:05.063617 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-49,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:05.077527 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-59,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:05.193775 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-70,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:13.190645 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-80,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:22.077994 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-90,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:09:54.590300 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-109,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:11:10.127054 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-119,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:11:16.794200 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-130,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:11:22.455652 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-140,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:12:49.423412 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-150,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:12:49.442096 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-169,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:12:49.461941 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-179,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:14:39.828133 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-190,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:14:39.858144 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-200,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:14:52.020319 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-210,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:14:54.452637 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-229,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:15:12.613935 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-239,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:15:35.223845 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-250,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:16:09.255059 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-260,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:17:31.919754 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-270,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:19:23.366267 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-289,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:21:57.344609 +0200 info main: #173 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-299,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:23:40.082406 +0200 info main: #31 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-1027,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> 2019-09-06 22:25:58.061883 +0200 info main: #31 C MITPROHB rx msg h 964,-1040,RT-BAT-C,5,86400,2,1,3830,3795,3830,-10,25,25,25,0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This shows the ticker was only run 299 times from 22:07:48 to 22:21:57. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After 22:21:57 the workaround was triggered and did a reconnect. Apparently during that network reinitialization of 103 seconds, the per second >>>>>>>> ticker was run 628 times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That can't be catching up on the event queue, as that queue has only 20 slots. So something strange is going on here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any ideas? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 06.09.19 um 08:04 schrieb Michael Balzer: >>>>>>>>> Mark & anyone else running a V2 server, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as most cars don't send history records, this also needs the change to the server I just pushed, i.e. server version 2.4.2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System/commits/maste... >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System/commits/master> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 05.09.19 um 19:55 schrieb Michael Balzer: >>>>>>>>>> I've pushed the nasty workaround: the v2 server checks for no RX over 15 minutes, then restarts the network (wifi & modem) as configured for >>>>>>>>>> autostart. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rolled out on my server in edge as 3.2.002-237-ge075f655. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please test. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 05.09.19 um 01:58 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson: >>>>>>>>>>>> Mark, you can check your server logs for history messages with ridiculous time offsets: >>>>>>>>>>>> [sddexter@ns27 server]$ cat log-20190903 | egrep "rx msg h [0-9]+,-[0-9]{4}" | wc -l >>>>>>>>>>>> 455283 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I checked my logs and see 12 vehicles showing this. But, 2 only show this for a debugcrash log (which is expected, I guess, if the time is not >>>>>>>>>>> synced at report time). I’ve got 4 cars with the offset > 10,000. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Mark. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 Sep 2019, at 4:45 AM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de> <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've pushed a change that needs some testing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I had the issue myself now parking at a certain distance from my garage wifi AP, i.e. on the edge of "in", after wifi had been disconnected >>>>>>>>>>>> for some hours, and with the module still connected via modem. The wifi blob had been trying to connect to the AP for about two hours. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As seen before, the module saw no error, just the server responses and commands stopped coming in. I noticed the default interface was still >>>>>>>>>>>> "st1" despite wifi having been disconnected and modem connected. The DNS was also still configured for my wifi network, and the interface >>>>>>>>>>>> seemed to have an IP address -- but wasn't pingable from the wifi network. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A power cycle of the modem solved the issue without reboot. So the cause may be in the modem/ppp subsystem, or it may be related (in some >>>>>>>>>>>> weird way) to the default interface / DNS setup. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> More tests showed the default interface again/still got set by the wifi blob itself at some point, overriding our modem prioritization. The >>>>>>>>>>>> events we didn't handle up to now were "sta.connected" and "sta.lostip", so I added these, and the bug didn't show up again since then. That >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean anything, so we need to test this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The default interface really shouldn't affect inbound packet routing of an established connection, but there always may be strange bugs >>>>>>>>>>>> lurking in those libs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The change also reimplements the wifi signal strength reading, as the tests also showed that still wasn't working well using the CSI >>>>>>>>>>>> callback. It now seems to be much more reliable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please test & report. The single module will be hard to test, as the bug isn't reproducable easily, but you can still try if wifi / modem >>>>>>>>>>>> transitions work well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mark, you can check your server logs for history messages with ridiculous time offsets: >>>>>>>>>>>> [sddexter@ns27 server]$ cat log-20190903 | egrep "rx msg h [0-9]+,-[0-9]{4}" | wc -l >>>>>>>>>>>> 455283 >>>>>>>>>>>> The bug now severely affects the V2 server performance, as the server is single threaded and doesn't scale very well to this kind of bulk >>>>>>>>>>>> data bursts, especially when coming from multiple modules in parallel. So we really need to solve this now. Slow reactions or connection >>>>>>>>>>>> drops from my server lately have been due to this bug. If this change doesn't solve it, we'll need to add some reboot trigger on "too many >>>>>>>>>>>> server v2 notification retransmissions" -- or maybe a modem power cycle will do, that wouldn't discard the data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.19 um 07:46 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson: >>>>>>>>>>>>> No problem. We can hold. I won’t commit anything for the next few days (and agree to hold-off on Markos’s pull). Let me know when you are ready. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Mark. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Sep 2019, at 1:58 AM, Michael Balzer <dexter@expeedo.de <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de>> <mailto:dexter@expeedo.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark, please wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may just have found the cause for issue #241, or at least something I need to investigate before releasing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to dig into my logs first, and try something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 02.09.19 um 12:23 schrieb Michael Balzer: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing open from my side at the moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't had the time to look in to Markos pull request, but from a first check also think that's going too deep to be included in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 02.09.19 um 04:15 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is well past time for a 3.2.003 release. Things seems table in edge (although some things only partially implemented). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything people want to include at the last minute, or can we go ahead and build? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Mark. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
-- Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26 _______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com <mailto:OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
_______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
-- Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26