• Recent
    • Unsolved
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Hardware Inventory task hangs

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved
    FOG Problems
    3
    14
    1.4k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • C
      chunter2
      last edited by

      @george1421 I’m not actually sure why it’s using bzImage_412. I upgraded from fog 1.2.0. Maybe the bzImage didn’t get upgraded? I did go to FOG Configuration and tried the kernel update. I chose 4.19.64 TomElliott 64 and it seemed to say it updated in the web UI. The bzImage in my /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe doesn’t seem to be newer than my upgrade date. Should it be?

      george1421G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • george1421G
        george1421 Moderator @chunter2
        last edited by

        @chunter2 The call for bzImage412 would be listed globally in the FOG Configuration -> FOG Settings page or in the kernel parameter of the host definition for this specific host.

        As for the updated kernel if you go to /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe and key in file bzImage it will tell you the kernel version.

        Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG!

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          chunter2
          last edited by

          @george1421 In the settings under TFTP Server the TFTP PXE KERNEL was set to bzImage_412. I’m assuming it should be bzImage? What’s strange is there’s no bzImage_412 file in the /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe folder.

          I ran file bzImage and got the following.

          bzImage: Linux kernel x86 boot executable bzImage, version 4.19.36 (jenkins-agent@Tollana) #1 SMP Sun Apr 28 18:10:07 CDT 2019, RO-rootFS, swap_dev 0x7, Normal VGA

          Not sure why it’s not showing 4.19.48 since I thought I updated it.

          george1421G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • george1421G
            george1421 Moderator @chunter2
            last edited by george1421

            @chunter2 Hey sorry for the delay, Yes that setting should be bzImage (watch the case) for the 64 bit kernel and bzImage32 for the 32 bit kernel.

            Kernel 4.19.36 is good enough for the 3040. Its not clear why the kernel update didn’t replace that kernel for you. FWIW you can manually download the kernels from here too: https://fogproject.org/kernels/ You will just need to rename the downloaded files to bzImage and bzImage32 respectively.

            if bzImage412 is missing I would expect you to have problems right away since that IS the FOS Linux kernel. Without that the target system won’t boot.

            Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              chunter2
              last edited by

              @george1421 Turns out the TFTP PXE KERNEL DIR variable was set to /var/www/fog/service/ipxe instead of /var/www/html/fog/service/ipxe/ which explains why the kernel wasn’t updating. Now it is. And I’ve got 4.19.64 now. I’m not sure why it was set wrong in the first place. And I agree, I don’t know why hosts were still booting. I’d get the fogproject splash page with a 3 second countdown on booting the first hard drive and then they would boot normally. A memory test seemed to work from the splash page but nothing else that I tried.

              george1421G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • george1421G
                george1421 Moderator @chunter2
                last edited by

                @chunter2 Interesting because the directory /var/www/fog should be linked to /var/www/html/fog The issue was ubuntu had one path and centos/rhel had a different path. So the developers created the link directory to satisfy both camps.

                So now does things work or not? For this 3040 are can you run the FOG compatibility test from the iPXE menu?

                Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG!

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • C
                  chunter2
                  last edited by

                  @george1421 Right now I’ve got all the web files in /var/www/html/fog. Inside that directory there’s a symlink called fog pointing to /var/www/html/fog (same thing). Not sure why. I’m on Ubuntu 18.04. How should it be set up so upgrades work properly?

                  I’ll have to test tonight to make sure the hosts are booting correctly and that the compatibility test works but I’m pretty sure they will now.

                  george1421G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • george1421G
                    george1421 Moderator @chunter2
                    last edited by

                    @chunter2 Rerunning the FOG installer “should” have fixed any sins from the past (with the exception of custom settings in the fog configurations like your kernel name)

                    Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      chunter2
                      last edited by

                      @george1421 All my hosts seem to be working fine now.

                      Should I just remove the useless symlink?

                      Thanks for the help.

                      george1421G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • george1421G
                        george1421 Moderator @chunter2
                        last edited by

                        @chunter2 Leaving it won’t hurt anything. One might think, if its working now its good enough.

                        Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG!

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post

                        155

                        Online

                        12.0k

                        Users

                        17.3k

                        Topics

                        155.2k

                        Posts
                        Copyright © 2012-2024 FOG Project