Windows 10 Error on deployment only on 1st attempts...

[Sebastian Roth]

@jflippen said in Windows 10 Error on deployment only on 1st attempts...:

However the LAG setup didn’t seem to have issues previous to the 1.5.6 update.

Well that’s a good point. On the other hand we haven’t changed that bit of FOG since a while and I can’t see yet how it would be related to anything we did change in the last months.

Let’s see what we can figure out. Please schedule a debug deploy task on the machine you saw this issue on last, boot it up and hit ENTER twice to get to the shell. Now start the process and strep though it till you hit the error. It should throw you back to the shell. Now run the following commands and take a picture of the output you get:

ls -al /images
mount

[george1421]

@jflippen how are your storage nodes setup? Are you using the location plugin to direct clients to specific storage nodes? -OR- are they setup just for load sharing (i.e. first one available gets the imaging job)?

I see from your picture that your fog server is at 10.59.10.12 and the storage server you are using is at 10.59.181.12. Are they on different subnets? What subnet is the pxe booting client on when attempting to connect to 10.59.181.12? Do you have any screening/firewall routers in between that might be blocking the NFS mount?

[jflippen]

@Sebastian-Roth Here’s what I get when trying to debug on my surface when I try to run the fog command on the debug. It doesn’t even make it past the first step.

[jflippen]

@george1421 They are just load sharing. The devices being imaged are on a different subnet than the storage nodes and fog server. Network team said there should be no blocking between sites on the firewall or the switch configs.

[george1421]

@jflippen Ok on this target computer where you are at the FOS Linux command prompt, what is the results of these commands:
ip addr show
lspci -nn|grep -i net

EDIT: Also from your picture, what is the storage node IP address? (its off the screen)

[jflippen]

@george1421 Here is a pic of the first command… the 2nd command brought back an empty result on the surface:

The storage node IP is 10.59.181.12.

[george1421]

@jflippen Oh wait, I just saw something in the previous picture.

Fatal Error: Unknown request type: Null

Are you usb booting into FOS? If so you need to schedule the task in the webui before you pick option 1 on the grub menu. If you don’t it will throw that error.

---

Now back on task, your surface has an IP address of 10.153.2.65. The fog server is on 10.59.10.12 and the storage node 10.59.181.12.

so now with these conditions from your surface pro running FOS.

mkdir /images
mount -t nfs 10.59.181.12:/images /images

That should mount the nfs share on your storage node. That is the point where it is erroring out in your initial picture. It can’t map to the /images share on your storage node.

[jflippen]

@george1421 Okay. I was issuing the debug task from the web GUI instead of deploying an image with debugging.
So, when I try mounting the volume before running the fog command, I get denied:

However when I then run the FOG command the imaging goes without a hitch:

After the imaging completes the share is mapped no problem.

[george1421]

@jflippen The connection refused response is telling (maybe)

On 10.59.181.12 if you run the command showmount -e 127.0.0.1 It should show you the network shares that are created.

Also on 10.59.181.12 you do have selinux set to permissible and the linux firewall disabled?

There is another possibility that I have the nfs mount command wrong for FOS. I don’t think so, but anything is possible.

[jflippen]

@george1421 I had a meeting this afternoon and will be off the next few days, so I won’t be able to test this until Monday. I will post results when I get in.

[jflippen]

@george1421 Here is what shows up as mounted on the storage node:

Firewalld stopped and disabled.
sestatus is in permissive mode.

[Sebastian Roth]

@george1421 @jflippen Just found this by accident and was wondering if there are any news on this topic?

[Sebastian Roth]

@george1421 @jflippen Marking as solved as we have not heard back from anyone since a long time.

[jflippen]

@Sebastian-Roth That’s fine. Things have been pretty swamped over here so I had to put the issue on the back burner. The issue doesn’t always show up, so troubleshooting has been time consuming.