Best version of Ubuntu for FOG 1.2.0

[msimpson]

Just curious what everyone recommends as far as Ubuntu version for FOG 1.2.0. I’m setting up a FOG server at work, last week I tried setting up 14.04 and everything was working fine. I rebooted the FOG server and after that, I got tftp timeouts on my test client. Last night, I rebuilt it with 12.04 and same thing… worked fine and after server reboot tftp timeouts. It was also wanting to update the database schema when going to the address in a web browser even after I did initially during setup.

I’m going to install Win7 x64 on the PC tonight, install Virtualbox and build it again as a VM. Just want to know what everyone recommends for Ubuntu version, I will be installing the desktop version as my linux skills are lacking.

[KKTwenty101]

I found Ubuntu was not very good in hyper-v although I have never tried it in virtualbox, I had NIC and SMP issues. Centos 6.7 installs as per the instructions in the wiki to the letter - I had no issues copying and pasting commands.

[Wayne Workman]

There is a fix for Ubuntu and fog 1.2.0, it’s related to how the machine calls itself for the local loopback, it affects mysql mostly.

after the reboot, make sure tftp is running, give the service a restart. There’s an entire article just on TFTP troubleshooting right here: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Troubleshoot_TFTP

[msimpson]

@Wayne-Workman I did that this morning and it did work if I remember correctly, I’ll test again tonight. Do you know how to automate the tftpd service restart at boot up? I think I read that solution somewhere.

I will probably do another install in a virtualbox VM and see what happens. Would be nice to snapshot along the way, hopefully performance doesn’t tank with a type 2 hypervisor.

I will post back with results when I get a chance to work on it. Thanks guys

[need2]

The best version of Ubuntu that I can recommend for any server installation is called Debian.

[ch3i]

@need2 said:

The best version of Ubuntu that I can recommend for any server installation is called Debian.

\o/

[Juan Antonio]

In my case, I used Ubuntu Server 7.10, 8.04 and 10.04, it worked well in all versions, I´ve had some problems when trying to clone Windows XP with Fog 1.2 on Ubuntu 10.04, so I use a server on Ubuntu 8.04 with FOG 0.32 to clone machines with Windows XP, for the rest; Ubuntu Server 10.04 with FOG 1.2.0 that works wonders with cloning in Linux, Windows 7, 8, 8.1, dual systems (Linux + Windows) machines.
I have not tested with Windows 10.

[Tom Elliott]

@Juan-Antonio wow, I’ve never seen a post that makes dinosaurs turn in the soil before lol. Per the XP and 1.2.0 issue you’re describing, I know this has been fixed in trunk versions. There was an issue with xp and vista imaging under 1.2.0 and if I recall correctly it was fixed either in 2096 or 2097 of svn revision.

[msimpson]

Didn’t get a chance to play with this anymore yet, was swamped with a project last night. Hopefully over the weekend I can give it a try. What does everyone think about running FOG on type 2 hypervisor? Or should I just install it on bare metal?

I like the thought of being able to take snapshots as I go along so if I mess anything up I can restore a snapshot. The ‘host’ will be a Dell Optiplex 745 with 4GB of RAM. I will probably use Virtualbox and create VMDK so if in the future my boss wants to put it on an ESXi host it should be relatively painless.

[Wayne Workman]

@msimpson I’d recommend installing FOG Stable on bare hardware, and FOG Trunk on a hypervisor that supports snapshots.

[need2]

I suggest against installing Linux distros on Generation 2 Hyper-V. Newer Debian family distros technically support it, but I have seen some instability caused by the emulation of EFI hardware. Generation 1 works well still; its only drawbacks are a little more overhead and slightly slower boot times. But since Hyper-V and Linux have never fully integrated together, you shouldn’t see much difference in performance.

That being said, I’ve had FOG running on Gen1 Hyper-V for quite a long time here (even prior to 1.2.0), and its worked incredibly well. Granted I have dedicated a fair amount of resource on the host machine, and made sure that the other virtual instances running on the host are not disk-intensive.

Honestly, if you are running a most Microsoft server environment, I would strongly suggest using Hyper-V for your virtualization. It has been the easiest to manage throughout our domain, and most people’s Windows Server licensing already covers the use of at least two Windows Server instances on the host without having to pay for any additional licenses. And Linux system’s won’t use up any licensing at all, because Linux. And then there’s the added benefit that you can scale from a single virtual host to eventually having a clustered group of servers with fail-over and/or load balancing, using identical or mixed hardware. Really I do not understand why more Enterprise users running predominantly Windows environments do not use Hyper-V and instead go with less flexible and more expensive solutions.
</thread hijack>

[Wayne Workman]

@need2 said:

And Linux system’s won’t use up any licensing at all, because Linux.

+1

Really I do not understand why more Enterprise users running predominantly Windows environments do not use Hyper-V and instead go with less flexible and more expensive solutions.

I hear you brother.

In fact, why not just use CentOS 7’s integrated hypervisor? I’ve ran Windows Server 2012 in it before with no issue, and I’ve ran linux inside it too, naturally. Then you have NO licensing, and ALL the power to do whatever you want!

That said,
Hyper-V comes with a Windows Server 2008 and higher product key… USE IT!!! You’re life will be easier! Seperate out all of your major “things” so that the failure of one “thing” won’t affect all the other “things” you have!

I can’t stress how invaluable virtualization is. there is a REASON why a virtualization specialist job pays 80K a year.

[need2]

Agreed. Really it just comes down to the IT department at the organization on whether they are more comfortable managing bare metal Windows Server or Linux.

And wow… 80K a year… guess I better do some more training.

For reals this time though, I’m done hijacking the thread.

[msimpson]

I work at a VMware shop with a 3 host cluster with shared storage, I’m not allowed to use the SAN for image storage. Which is why I grabbed a Dell Optiplex PC off of the shelf and planned to use that. I don’t even think my boss would allow me to setup Hyper-V in our environment.

We do not plan to image many PC’s at once, maybe 2-3 at most. Speed isn’t much of a concern either, I just have a 500GB 7200rpm SATA drive in the Dell currently. I just need to get this setup and running so we can have a standard method of imaging PCs/POS terminals.

I am definitely more comfortable with Windows which is why I was tossing around the idea of just installing Win7 Pro x64, installing Virtualbox, and then create the VM for FOG on that to take snapshots, easier to backup the vmkd file containing images and the FOG install.

[msimpson]

@need2 I do agree with you though, Hyper-V 2012R2 has come a long way. For any new environment, if it were up to me, would be Hyper-V. We went with VMware in about 2009 a year after I started at my job. Recently upgraded the hosts to 5.5, pretty stable.

I will just experiment and see what works the best, I’ll try virtualized in a type 2 hypervisor since I started to set it up last night. Got our standard win7 image on the Dell PC, will finish installing Virtualbox and creating the FOG VM.

If performance really sucks, I’ll install on bare metal. I will also look at CentOS as well, it will have to be GUI though. Not only for myself, but for my coworkers as well. No one has much experience with Linux.

[msimpson]

Sorry, thoughts are all over the place. Need to get some sleep, I will work on it some more tonight hopefully.

We have multiple VLANs too… so it will work on our main VLAN for now until I can figure out the VLAN thing. We use Cisco switches… That is for future though, I just want to get it up and going on our main VLAN for now. Proof of concept type of deal I guess. I believe everyone will love it when it comes time to build/rebuild a PC.

[Wayne Workman]

@msimpson said:

I am definitely more comfortable with Windows which is why I was tossing around the idea of just installing Win7 Pro x64, installing Virtualbox, and then create the VM for FOG on that to take snapshots

CentOS 7 Hypervisor supports snapshots, it works, I’ve used it for FOG and for Server 2012.

If performance really sucks, I’ll install on bare metal.

SAS 12gig can easily keep up, Sata 6gig can’t really… There’s not a comparison really between server and consumer hardware. However FOG will work, it’ll just be really slow. I virtualized FOG in CentOS 7 hypervisor using an Optiplex 9020, when I imaged with it the HDD light was just solid lit and the speeds were not that great in comparison to FOG running in Hyper-V with SAS 12 gig drives, but the speeds probably was great given the setup and hardware.

I will also look at CentOS as well, it will have to be GUI though.

People at my work ask why I choose to not install with a GUI. I ask them to find FOG documentation that uses a GUI on the backend… there isn’t. The installer is CLI, all of our documentation for troubleshooting is CLI, the management of services documentation is CLI, adding drives and moving images around is all documented in CLI. And any help you get on the forums for back-end and troubleshooting will be commands you run in the CLI. Why? Because it’s too hard to create documentation for 10 different GUI versions. CLI provides more consistency across the flavors of Linux - and consistency is a good thing.

If you choose to install a GUI, you will find yourself clicking a user name, logging in, and then you will find yourself opening the terminal.

But I won’t knock anyone for this, if it makes you feel better and adopt Linux faster, then awesome.

I might also add that many of the GUIs for Linux sorta suck and are really limited in what they can do (in comparison to what CLI can do, i.e. everything).

I believe everyone will love it when it comes time to build/rebuild a PC.

Everyone always does.

[msimpson]

@Wayne-Workman you win lol, I’ll follow documentation and just do CLI because you are right, every time I’ve installed FOG I went straight to a terminal

[Juan Antonio]

@Tom-Elliott; I made several tests with different machines with the same result, the hard drive mounting failure to try clone new computer , only with XP (VISTA never use it). Anyway I check it again and share the results.

I’m using the FOG version 1.2.0 (latest version) on Ubuntu Server 10.04 and for teams XP’s The FOG version 0.32 on Ubuntu Desktop 8.04; for the error caused.

I must explain that we still use XP on older machines, used to introduction to the informatic to children 3-6 old years.
Let us replacing gradually, We are without money.

Sorry; I do not understand this comment “” that turn Makes dinosaurs in the soil before lol “”

[Wayne Workman]

@Juan-Antonio said:

Sorry; I do not understand this comment “” that turn Makes dinosaurs in the soil before lol “”

He was lightheartedly making fun of XP being in use.

Are you willing to try this with FOG Trunk in a test environment?