FOG resizes all partitions even System Reserved!

[Sebastian Roth]

@Quazz said in FOG resizes all partitions even System Reserved!:

but it looks like multiple people having issues.

Really? I must have missed those posts!?

@maxcarpone I can provide the older init files for testing if you like.

sudo -i
cd /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe
wget http://fogproject.org/inits/67init.xz
wget http://fogproject.org/inits/67init_32.xz

Now go to this host’s settings and set 67init.xz as Host Init if it is a 64 bit machine or 67init_32.xz if it’s good old 32 bit.

[maxcarpone]

@Sebastian-Roth Hey, I created a new image so there is no possible mistake.

I’m ok for testing more things, I just need more explanations.
If I understand well, I must log on the server and go to /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe and download 67init.xz then go to the “TFTP server” settings and change the pxe boot image? Or do I need to execute something on the client side in debug mode?

Ok, I get it, I need to edit host parameters.

[maxcarpone]

@Sebastian-Roth Well, d1.fixed_size_partitions is still empty with the new init provided

[Sebastian Roth]

@maxcarpone said in FOG resizes all partitions even System Reserved!:

Well, d1.fixed_size_partitions is still empty with the new init provided

Thanks for testing. Seems like it never worked or your system is somehow special?! @Quazz Any ideas? Could you possibly test a French Windows version in the next couple of days?

[maxcarpone]

@Sebastian-Roth I won’t be surprised because all the files d1.fixed_size_partitions I have are empty and I’m using FOG since 1.2 (before moving to trunk version).

[Quazz]

@Sebastian-Roth I recently updated most of my images and it works fine on all MBR images (accross languages (EN, FR, NL) and W7 + W10), but I do notice a problem on the latest W10 GPT images, where the first partition isn’t picked up on certain languages since they decided to change/translate labels. (first partition is “Recovery”). in fact I think this may even fail on English too since it’s FAT32, not NTFS

However, if @maxcarpone is using an MBR installation (looks like he is since the first partition label), then I have no clue why it wouldn’t work. The regex works fine in test cases and in real scenarios on my own images.

His label information on his disk is correct too as we can see in the screenshot, by all accounts it should be processed correctly…

If an English image could be created the same way a French one would and then testing to see if that one works could potentially shed some light on the situation. I realize that’s asking a lot of course. You don’t have to install all the software or anything, just install Windows and then prepare for capture as you usually do.

main reason I want to test this is because I wonder if we’re focusing on the language too much as opposed to other alternative factors that could mess with detecting the partitions correctly

double check image settings, primarily the OS field needs to be correct or it will never even try to check for the labels

[maxcarpone]

@Quazz Here is a screenshot of my image settings

I asked my colleagues to see if they had the same problem and some have that problem with empty file and some don’t.
For example, in another college, their W10 images have :1:3 in d1.fixed_size_partitions but not their W7 images!

I don’t understand because we installed things the same way and we built our FOG server the same way too!

[Quazz]

@maxcarpone Could you provide a screenshot of the disk layout in Windows Disk Management?

:1:3 is odd to say the least, thinking that disk layout is something like “System Reserved” “Main Windows partition” “Recovery”. Either that or it’s GPT and somehow the second partition wasn’t picked up… Not sure.

But anyway, let’s focus on the images you have available to you in front of you first. I currently don’t really have an idea as to why it would fail in your situation, though.

[maxcarpone]

@Quazz Here it is.

[Quazz]

@maxcarpone Looks normal to me, should just work, very strange!

Will likely look into an entirely different system for this later tonight if I don’t forget.

[Quazz]

After further investigation, using the ‘English’ label ‘System Reserved’ works fine.

I double checked my french images and one dating 25 october capture the label was picked up correctly, but one dating 16 november was not.

I believe the one around 25 october was the one I was using when I originally tested the new label regex and confirmed it working.

Not sure how/why it wouldn’t work now, though.

[Quazz]

@Sebastian-Roth Soooo, this is bizarre, but both the [EeÉé] and [Dd]? seem to fail now.

I am at a loss as to explain why though since it definitely worked

[Tom Elliott]

@Quazz I think it best to move the checks into a case statement and separate out whether it should be reserved or reserved with the accents.

I’m suspecting the Regex method is very finicky.

Possibly we need to use .*[Rr][EeÈè][Ss][EeÈè][Rr][Vv][EeÈè].*

Here’s why:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2348379/use-regular-expression-in-if-condition-in-bash

Basically, ? in the if statement regex = Wildcard for one or more characters. You were, I presume, using [Dd] as an “if d exists or not, let’s be true” kind of scenario?

I don’t think it has to do with the e or accented e’s, just plain it doesn’t know what to match and what not.

[Quazz]

@Tom-Elliott We had case originally I believe, but it has more limited pattern matching, it wouldn’t work at all at the time.

I think it’s ultimately just going to be struggling with accented letters no matter what we do. Even cheeky capture methods like [D-Fd-f] don’t work to capture é in the inits (but does on something like Centos 7 or even online shell sandboxes.

I’m not sure WHY that is, though.

Basically, ? in the if statement regex = Wildcard for one or more characters. You were, I presume, using [Dd] as an “if d exists or not, let’s be true” kind of scenario?

I don’t think it has to do with the e or accented e’s, just plain it doesn’t know what to match and what not.

Yes, that was the original idea, which works in certain environments I suppose, but should definitely be replaced with a wild card instead. (along with [Dd])

However, even when removing that bit, it still fails to match. It so far has only worked with

[Rr]*[Ss][Ee][Rr][Vv]* as the pattern.

[Rr][EeÉé][Ss][Ee][Rr][Vv][EeÉé]* does not work.

I’m thinking that perhaps using grep to do the matching might be more consistent and predictable in its behavior.

Something like:

echo $label | grep -iq "R[ée]serv[ée]"

[Tom Elliott]

@Quazz A way around it:

I believe the problem is dealing with multiple different characters within the same pattern of matching.

Maybe something like:

.*[Rr][Ee|È|è][Ss][Ee|È|è][Rr][Vv][Ee|È|è][Dd|].*

[Quazz]

@Tom-Elliott

I like that idea, I will test it in a minute, but I did edit it a little bit (correcting accents and changing the last character possibilities given the label format that gets checked + added support for Dutch)

[Rr][Ee|É|é][Ss][Ee][Rr][Vv][Ee|É|é][Dd|_|Ee]

Well edit with results

[Tom Elliott]

Running some testing:

I created a labels.txt file

I then pulled the information from labels.txt into a variable.

Then I run inline testing: Regex pattern used: *[Rr][Ee|É|é][Ss][Ee|É|é][Rr][Vv][Ee|É|é|][Dd|_|]*

Then I run inline testing: Regex pattern used: .*[Rr][Ee|É|é][Ss][Ee|É|é][Rr][Vv][Ee|É|é|][Dd|_|].*

Hopefully this can help shed light. The .* matters more than we might expect.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Quazz Are you sure it’s both that fail now or could it just be one of them? I could imagine this being a very dirty character encoding issue. Could be wrong though.

[Tom Elliott]

@Sebastian-Roth Talking with @Quazz in chat, he says “you’ll never guess what works, storing the regex into a variable”

[Quazz]

@Tom-Elliott [Rr][Ee|É|é][Ss][Ee][Rr][Vv][Ee|É|é][Dd|]

This one is confirmed to work in my test case.

Feel free to update github as I can’t create a PR atm