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

    Failure to expand shrunken resizeable image from Linux machines

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved
    Bug Reports
    4
    47
    10.2k
    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.
    • george1421G
      george1421 Moderator @Xipher
      last edited by

      @xipher said in Failure to expand shrunken resizeable image from Linux machines:

      @george1421 your Windows centric response actually begs a question.

      Since I’m deploying Linux images, is there less support for doing this than there is for Windows?

      I’ve built images with and without using lvm on the captured host, thinking it was that, but now I’m starting to think that the support for this feature and people talking about it are deploying Windows, not Linux…?

      Well my apologies, since 90% of the people deploy windows computers, I assumed without verifying.

      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
      • george1421G
        george1421 Moderator @Xipher
        last edited by

        @xipher said in Failure to expand shrunken resizeable image from Linux machines:

        The only commonality at the moment is that it’s Linux Mint 18.2 x64 being captured, and always with a swap at the start of the drive, then two logical partitions on a single extent after that

        I will spin this test up in my home VM lab. I’m actually writing this post on on a LM 18.2 OS. I should be able to confirm that this is an issue later tonight.

        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!

        X george1421G 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • X
          Xipher @george1421
          last edited by

          @george1421 keen to hear what you find! I’ll take some pictures of what I run into myself, source material and what I get in the end.

          Also, didn’t mean to sound off color with the Windows comment, just genuine curiosity if I had the wrong idea on things, bad tone on my part.

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

            Whelp, I can’t seem to duplicate your error. That doesn’t mean anything other than I can’t duplicate your errors in my lab. I tested on both vSphere and also virtual box on my LM laptop.

            I simply downloaded a fresh iso of LM 18.2 Mate (I needed that iso for a home project anyway) and installed on the source VM. My source VM I created a 50GB hard drive and installed Mint 18.2 on it. I used all default settings, just an easy and quick install without making any decisions other than password. Once installed I pxe booted the target, registered with my FOG-Pi server and captured the image.

            I created a new VM with a 65GB hard drive (different size than source disk by design), pxe booted, registered and then deployed at the end of registration.

            Here is what I have the image definition setup as
            0_1501287512780_linux_core_img_def.png

            lm_source
            0_1501287053992_lm_source.png

            Here is the output df and lsblk of the source virtual machine.

            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ df -h
            Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
            udev            474M     0  474M   0% /dev
            tmpfs           100M  3.6M   96M   4% /run
            /dev/sda1        49G  5.3G   41G  12% /
            tmpfs           496M   92K  496M   1% /dev/shm
            tmpfs           5.0M  4.0K  5.0M   1% /run/lock
            tmpfs           496M     0  496M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
            cgmfs           100K     0  100K   0% /run/cgmanager/fs
            tmpfs           100M  4.0K  100M   1% /run/user/108
            tmpfs           100M   20K  100M   1% /run/user/1000
            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ lsblk
            NAME   MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
            sr0     11:0    1 1024M  0 rom  
            sda      8:0    0   50G  0 disk 
            ├─sda2   8:2    0    1K  0 part 
            ├─sda5   8:5    0 1021M  0 part [SWAP]
            └─sda1   8:1    0   49G  0 part /
            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ 
            
            

            lm_target
            0_1501287072267_lm_target.png

            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ df -h
            Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
            udev            474M     0  474M   0% /dev
            tmpfs           100M  3.6M   96M   4% /run
            /dev/sda1        63G  5.3G   55G   9% /
            tmpfs           496M   92K  496M   1% /dev/shm
            tmpfs           5.0M  4.0K  5.0M   1% /run/lock
            tmpfs           496M     0  496M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
            cgmfs           100K     0  100K   0% /run/cgmanager/fs
            tmpfs           100M  4.0K  100M   1% /run/user/108
            tmpfs           100M   20K  100M   1% /run/user/1000
            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ 
            
            ndoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ lsblk
            NAME   MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
            sr0     11:0    1 1024M  0 rom  
            sda      8:0    0   65G  0 disk 
            ├─sda2   8:2    0    1K  0 part 
            ├─sda5   8:5    0 1021M  0 part 
            └─sda1   8:1    0 63.7G  0 part /
            

            As you can see on the target computer, its hard drive did expand to fit the size of the physical disk, which happens to be larger than the source disk.

            From looking at the output of lsblk you an see that LM didn’t use LVM when creating the disk.

            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
            • Tom ElliottT
              Tom Elliott
              last edited by

              So if I’m to gather things correctly, you’re attempting to go down in size from 50gb (capture system) disk to a 30gb (deploy system) disk?, What was the sizes when you said you deployed to a “larger” disk?

              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! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

              Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)

              Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG

              george1421G X 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • george1421G
                george1421 Moderator @Tom Elliott
                last edited by

                @tom-elliott Whoops I missed that bit about going smaller than the source disk. Let me queue up the test environment and see if I can duplicate that condition too.

                During testing I also confirmed that shrinking the source image didn’t mess up the source computer. Everything appear to run ok on the source image.

                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!

                george1421G X 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • X
                  Xipher @Tom Elliott
                  last edited by

                  @tom-elliott

                  I was using a 100gb disk in my VM environment when I was testing the 50gb captured drive.

                  I’m recreating my test environment now virtually, though I do have the following pictures from a more ‘meat-space’ environment I was working with today…

                  http://imgur.com/a/M6lu1

                  That was testing a 128gb drive to a 320gb drive, the picture on the bottom shows the settings for the image.

                  Sorry that they’re actual pictures, the system doing the images is not connected to the network, internet, etc and I didn’t have a flash drive to bring back with me at the time.

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

                    @george1421 Well setting the image to a smaller drive than the source DID successfully replicate the OP’s issue.

                    jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ df -h
                    Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
                    udev            474M     0  474M   0% /dev
                    tmpfs           100M  3.6M   96M   4% /run
                    /dev/sda1       5.9G  5.3G  296M  95% /
                    tmpfs           496M  112K  496M   1% /dev/shm
                    tmpfs           5.0M  4.0K  5.0M   1% /run/lock
                    tmpfs           496M     0  496M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
                    cgmfs           100K     0  100K   0% /run/cgmanager/fs
                    tmpfs           100M   20K  100M   1% /run/user/1000
                    jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ lsblk
                    NAME   MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
                    sr0     11:0    1 1024M  0 rom  
                    sda      8:0    0   25G  0 disk 
                    └─sda1   8:1    0    6G  0 part /
                    jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ 
                    
                    

                    Note there are missing partitions too. 😉

                    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
                    • X
                      Xipher @george1421
                      last edited by

                      @george1421 The whole ‘going to a smaller disk’ thing seems to be in relation to offsets being passed that exceed the ‘physical’ dimensions of the drive being restored to, see this prior gallery for the errors related.

                      http://imgur.com/a/LLH0m

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • X
                        Xipher
                        last edited by

                        OK, so, after a fair bit of testing and retesting, here is what I’ve found out.

                        First of all, the following image gallery I created of the issue explains things well:


                        http://imgur.com/a/2PAWT


                        The TL;DR version is this:

                        LVM breaks things something /fierce/ with Mint’s default layout. If you choose to use LVM and don’t set a custom partition layout, what you get from the 18.2 installer is whats in the screenshot and it will not expand properly.

                        Having the root partition anywhere but as the first and primary partition of the drive makes things break. In my case, the SWAP partition was always first in my images.

                        Having the root partition as the first and primary partition makes the expansion work, almost 100%, it left some space but its good enough for right now.

                        Important Note: In my testing tonight I ended up using FOG 1.5 RC5 since I /just/ rebuilt in tonight to do this testing. Prior testing was performed on FOG 1.4.4 which for me was producing stranger results than these.

                        Is this intended functionality?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Tom ElliottT
                          Tom Elliott
                          last edited by

                          I don’t understand. So it was your layout of how it applied the partitions to disk that caused the resizing to not happen properly? So expanding does work when laid out in a specific fashion?

                          I was able to replicate the results through 3 vms, one capture at 50GB, one for deploying to at 30GB, and one for deploying to at 100GB (to mimic what you described as closely as possible.)

                          I DID find some issues, and worked very diligently to try to fix those issues. I don’t think it has anything to do with placement of LVM, directly, rather because the extended partition was moving the LVM around and it was unable to find itself based on what was presented originally.

                          (See Here for more information, though not directly describing it might make sense).
                          https://github.com/FOGProject/fogproject/commit/635c5050904c3e29edd26151d96b7217318acf6c

                          I was able to fix and deploy to all devices and the devices were able to boot without an issue and all showed the “expansion” had worked as well. (Well the capture system didn’t expand, but it was using the correct layout as to how it was originally configured. – Meaning it applied back exactly what should have been since it was the exact same disk. Prior to this it was expanding a tiny bit even to the same machine.)

                          I’ve updated the init’s. Would you be willing to give them a shot and see if the “originals” will now start working?

                          wget -O /var/www/fog/service/ipxe/init.xz https://fogproject.org/inits/init.xz
                          wget -O /var/www/fog/service/ipxe/init_32.xz https://fogproject.org/inits/init_32.xz
                          

                          I’m sorry it took so long to get anything, but hope you understand that we are very busy with our own things too.

                          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! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                          Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)

                          Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG

                          george1421G X 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • george1421G
                            george1421 Moderator @Tom Elliott
                            last edited by george1421

                            @tom-elliott While I’m not using a LVM disk deploying a 50GB image to a 25GB target computer seemed to work. I still have a 1.4.4 build on my fog server. I just copied over the inits.

                            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ lsblk
                            NAME   MAJ:MIN RM    SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
                            sr0     11:0    1   1024M  0 rom  
                            sda      8:0    0     25G  0 disk 
                            ├─sda2   8:2    0      1K  0 part 
                            ├─sda5   8:5    0 1021.8M  0 part 
                            └─sda1   8:1    0     24G  0 part /
                            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ df -h
                            Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
                            udev            474M     0  474M   0% /dev
                            tmpfs           100M  3.6M   96M   4% /run
                            /dev/sda1        24G  5.3G   18G  24% /
                            tmpfs           496M   92K  496M   1% /dev/shm
                            tmpfs           5.0M  4.0K  5.0M   1% /run/lock
                            tmpfs           496M     0  496M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
                            cgmfs           100K     0  100K   0% /run/cgmanager/fs
                            tmpfs           100M   20K  100M   1% /run/user/1000
                            jondoe@jondoe-VirtualBox ~ $ 
                            

                            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 1
                            • george1421G
                              george1421 Moderator
                              last edited by george1421

                              For the next test I spun up a 50GB ubuntu image (knowing the default layout is on lvm) and captured that. We all know since the disk layout is LVM FOG will capture the lvm partition as raw even for single disk resizable. That means the LVM partition is not resizable from within FOS at this point.

                              Here is the ubuntu reference image layout
                              0_1501341561385_ubuntu-core.png

                              Here is the ubuntu image deployed to a larger hard drive (65GB target vs 50GB reference image) target computer.
                              0_1501341603630_ubuntu_deploy_lg.png

                              Here is the results of trying to deploy a 50GB captured image to a 25GB target computer:

                              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
                              • X
                                Xipher @Tom Elliott
                                last edited by

                                @tom-elliott I’ll give it a shot today 🙂

                                Going to post up the screenshots of the output in the same style everyone else is first though to try and help explain and identify the original issue better, want to try and make sure everyone is on the same page by using the same style of output.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • X
                                  Xipher
                                  last edited by

                                  Ok, want to break down the results in the same sort of output I’m seeing used here for the source and destination of each attempt 🙂

                                  Destination is always a 75gb machine which is always a bigger disk. The ‘smaller disk’ restore issue I think is already identified?

                                  This is the ‘custom’ partitioned layout I was using yesterday which caused a problem:

                                  Source:

                                  alt text

                                  Destination:

                                  alt text

                                  This is the ‘default’ layout Mint Mate 18.2 produces from its installer when LVM is selected:

                                  Source:

                                  alt text

                                  Destination:

                                  alt text

                                  This is the ‘working’ solution wherein the root partition is the first partition on the drive:

                                  Source:

                                  alt text

                                  Destination:

                                  alt text

                                  Something I noticed on all the machines though was that the SWAP partition ONLY mounted on the LVM destination machine…!? All other attempts without LVM lead to the destination machine not mounting its swap, really weird…

                                  Hope this helps understand what I’m running into 🙂 and I’ll try the patched init today, though I have to run off for a bit at the moment, sorry!

                                  Tom ElliottT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • Tom ElliottT
                                    Tom Elliott @Xipher
                                    last edited by

                                    @xipher I believe the swap mount is unrelated to where the partition actually sits, rather Linux Mint seems to set the swap by uuid. While we do try to reset the UUID, this isn’t working and I’m not overly worried about fixing the UUID for SWAP partitions anyway. (Why you ask?) Because you can edit the /etc/fstab, change the swap partition from the UUID to the actual location. In my case /dev/sda5 is the drive, so replace the UUID bit with /dev/sda5 and all works properly on reboots.

                                    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! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                                    Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)

                                    Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG

                                    X 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • X
                                      Xipher @Tom Elliott
                                      last edited by

                                      @tom-elliott Sorry it took so long, I put the new init in, but the results were identical sadly :C

                                      Also, totally agree on the SWAP partition issue, its a change I’ll make on the client to capture.

                                      Tom ElliottT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • Tom ElliottT
                                        Tom Elliott @Xipher
                                        last edited by

                                        @xipher what do you mean identical? Of course my test boxes are using the default layout of linux mint, but all are appropriately resizing where my tests yesterday before changes failed in almost the exact same way you described.

                                        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! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                                        Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)

                                        Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG

                                        X 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • Tom ElliottT
                                          Tom Elliott
                                          last edited by

                                          Also, you did update the init first? No need to rerun installer for these tests as it will write the “bad” inits if done.

                                          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! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                                          Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)

                                          Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • X
                                            Xipher @Tom Elliott
                                            last edited by Xipher

                                            @tom-elliott

                                            Ran the two commands in your prior post as root:

                                            wget -O /var/www/fog/service/ipxe/init.xz https://fogproject.org/inits/init.xz
                                            wget -O /var/www/fog/service/ipxe/init_32.xz https://fogproject.org/inits/init_32.xz

                                            Recaptured all 3 images, then casted them to the test system one after the other and recorded the results.

                                            Didn’t re-run the installer or anything else, system wasn’t rebooted, etc, pretty much just replaced the init per the above command provided, recaptured, recast.

                                            I could try providing a VM image of one of the systems I’m capturing from that exhibits the issue? Could provide the actual images too.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 2 / 3
                                            • First post
                                              Last post

                                            165

                                            Online

                                            12.0k

                                            Users

                                            17.3k

                                            Topics

                                            155.2k

                                            Posts
                                            Copyright © 2012-2024 FOG Project