No network interface found! Kernel might not have the correct driver! Lenovo T14 Gen 2.

[Sebastian Roth]

@george1421 You keep mixing up ext4 formating and ntfs mounting. Won’t work!

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421 said in No network interface found! Kernel might not have the correct driver! Lenovo T14 Gen 2.:

fidsk /dev/nvme0n1

Okay sorry for the delay in response. I had to leave work yesterday. Here is the results of the last sesh.

It seems that all the fdisk commands worked, I was able to delete all the partitions and then create 1.

When doing the command:

fidsk /dev/nvme0n1

Results:

nke2fs 1.45.6 (20-Mar-2020)
Discarding device blocks: done
Creating filesysten with 124866880 4k blocks and 31219712 inodes
Filesysten UUID: 5652bad-814c-4a2d-811a-fd5fb50a6dc4
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208,
4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968,
102400000
Allocating group tables: done
Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (262144 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

Now after that I noticed that you crossed out the other command for mounting so I assumed you wanted me to use the command:

mount /dev/nvme0n1p1 /ntfs

Results:

//there was no output so I assumed it mounted since there wasn't an error

With that I went back to earlier replies and did this command:

touch /ntfs/bob.txt

Result:

//no output

After that I went to see if the partition is connected:

df -h

Result:

Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/root 248M 97M 139M 42% /
/dev/nvme0n1p1 477G 26G 452G 6% /ntfs

I assumed that is what we wanted to see, so I continued to this command:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/ntfs/test1.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=direct

Result:

1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0GiB) copied, 0.546232 s, 2.0 GB/s

Interestingly fast. I was assuming it wouldn’t be. Does this provide any insight?

[george1421]

@itsecwalrus well it did show us something. The disk subsystem isn’t the problem. Those numbers are really good for local disk performance. I know it took us a lot of time to get here, but at least we know the issue isn’t with the nvme drive access (kind of what i was thinking was wrong with the new hardware. We’ve seen this in the past).

The next point we should focus on is network performance. We’ll use iperf3 for that. We’ll install iperf3 on the server and set it up in server mode and then from the target computer have it connect to the fog server and send a sample file and record the timing.

Since you have ubuntu then you will want to do a sudo apt-get install iperf3 to install iperf3 on your fog server. On a side note, hopefully you did not enable the ubuntu firewall because we will use a non standard port for sending data.

[george1421]

@itsecwalrus once you have iperf3 installed we need to go to the fog server and turn on the iperf service in server mode.

sudo iperf3 -s

Now go to the target computer and run this command
iperf3 -c <fog_server_ip>

This will give you an output similar to this. https://forums.fogproject.org/post/98230

Understand this bit is ONLY testing network throughput

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421

That is also what I assumed it would be. I am surprised it isn’t that causing the issue.

I installed iperf3 on the server without any errors.
With the command:

sudo iperf3 -s

Resulted in:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on xxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------

I went to the target machine and ran:

iperf3 -c <fog_server_ip>

Target machine results:

Accepted connection from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, port xxxx
[  5] local xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx port xxxx connected to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx port xxxx
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate	Retr	Cwnd
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   112 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   110 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   931 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   112 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
[  5]  10.00-10.00  sec  1.12 MBytes   898 Mbits/sec 	0	413 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  1.09 GBytes   933 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  1.08 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Results on Server:

Accepted connection from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, port xxxx
[  5] local xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx port xxxx connected to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx port xxxx
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   109 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   931 Mbits/sec
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec
[  5]  10.00-10.01  sec  1.05 MBytes   898 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  1.08 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec                  receiver

[george1421]

@itsecwalrus Yes these settings are exactly what I would expect on a very healthy FOG deployment.

So you are sure that this same computer from this same network jack it was moving at 10-22MB/minute ?

I’m a bit hesitant to put you through the NFS tests because the other two were the likely trouble spots.

I want to keep this configuration on this target system, but it would be interesting to know what version of partclone your version of FOG is using. This number would be visible on the blue partclone screen. It would be a number like 0.3.13 . Maybe you could find out what version using a different computer. Its not vitally important to know now, but the underlying subsystems seem to be working as it should. The next tests are NFS file transfer and then decompression and partclone.

Does this target computer have at least 4GB of ram?

This is the same exact image as you are sending to other lenovo computers, just this model is having the speed issue consuming your standard image?

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421

So you are sure that this same computer from this same network jack it was moving at 10-22MB/minute ?

Yes I have not moved it from the last time I tried to image it. We have a few others of the same model we attempted to image from different drops in different rooms. All of them had the same result.

Does this target computer have at least 4GB of ram?

Yes, I believe it has 8.

This is the same exact image as you are sending to other lenovo computers, just this model is having the speed issue consuming your standard image?

Yes we use the same image for all of our Lenovo machines because it has never given us problems to do so.

I want to keep this configuration on this target system, but it would be interesting to know what version of partclone your version of FOG is using. This number would be visible on the blue partclone screen. It would be a number like 0.3.13 . Maybe you could find out what version using a different computer. Its not vitally important to know now, but the underlying subsystems seem to be working as it should. The next tests are NFS file transfer and then decompression and partclone.

It looks like the version of Partclone being used is Partclone v0.3.13 like you said.

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421 Any update?

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421 Hello!

I wanted to check in on this post to see if there was an update.

[george1421]

@itsecwalrus I started working on this next bit here: https://forums.fogproject.org/post/146681

I still need to work out a process for testing partclone performance. I think if I grab an existing image file I can send it to the local disk. All of these steps are to help up identify where its slow. From your testing we know its not the local disk (what I initially suspected) and not the network (suspected less since other models work OK). I doubt its NFS performance but we need to test for that. It could be partclone and something recently incompatible.

In the past we’ve also seen issue with the NVMe controller putting the nvme drive in a low power state during imaging. That should have been addressed in fog 1.5.9 released. But we might look into that too. But the drive speed tests didn’t indicate that was an issue.

[ITsecWalrus]

@george1421 Okay sounds good. I am checking this page frequently so if you need more from me just let me know!