Categories

• Announcements
  

  Get the latest news on what's happening.

  58
  Topics
  134
  Posts

  

  Cheers! Thank you!

• General Topics
  

  View tutorials or talk about FOG in general.

  General Tutorials

  1307
  Topics
  10345
  Posts

  J

  @Tom-Elliott Yes this is a VM. I followed the most current wiki I listed below in my previous replies. I ran mkfs ext4 /dev/sdb1 on the partition. So I’m assuming that is setting it to extended. I believe you are correct though.

  I am going to see if I can allocate some of the free space from my main partition to the /images directory.

  Like what is described here:

  http://askubuntu.com/questions/219881/how-can-i-create-one-logical-volume-over-two-disks-using-lvm

  We’ll see… It’s always something! I’m just glad our helpdesk has been slow! :-)

  Thanks again for the input!

  Cheers,

  Joe

• Technical Help
  

  Get help with your FOG system.

  FOG Problems Hardware Compatibility Windows Problems Linux Problems Mac Problems

  5621
  Topics
  54080
  Posts

  T

  Server FOG Version: 1.2.0 OS: CentOS 6.8 Client Service Version: OS: Windows 7 Description

  Hello All,

  I’ve just upgraded from 0.32 to 1.2.0 and it was easier than I expected, until I got to uploading an image from client to the server.

  I have VM with Windows 7, Single Disk - Resizable. The beginning of the process looks good, the resizing take some time (~15 minutes) and it ends with “Done”, then the first partition (Windows boot, 100MB) is uploading, and then when it comes to /dev/sda2 an error occurs:

  Partclone v0.2.69 http://partclone.org
  Starting to clone device (/dev/sda2) to image (/tmp/pigz2)
  Reading Super Block
  ntfsclone-ng.c: NOT NTFS partition, rtfs mount error 5

  What could possible cause the problem? That VM worked as a golden image with 0.32 for years, without and problems.

  –
  best regards,
  Tomasz

• Developers
  

  Report bugs, request features, or get the latest progress.

  General Feature Request Bug Reports

  1472
  Topics
  14289
  Posts

  

  @Wayne-Workman client time does does not affect this. This is a server issue.