Upgrade version

[george1421]

@mimi1255 This part of the process is a bit labor intensive.

1. Go into image management and create new image
2. Set the image name to match the directory name of the first image in /images (hint: use cut and paste if you are connected to the fog server using putty to ensure you get name exact)
3. Set the storage group
4. Operating system to match the image on disk
5. The image path should match what you keyed in as the image name.
6. The next one is going to be the tricky one. You need to set the image type to match (exactly) what was captured. Migrating from 1.2.0 you probably used single disk non-resizable.
7. Partitions: everything
8. And for compression leave it at 6

[mimi1255]

@george1421
I followed your message.

But is it normal that the Image size is 0 ?

Thanks.

[george1421]

@mimi1255 Yes and no.

That number is entered by the FOS engine as it captures the image. Since you “side loaded” the images into the fog server that value will be zero. No worries its just an informational value. The system will deploy without issue.

[mimi1255]

@george1421 Sorry, I have a problem…

[george1421]

@mimi1255 Was this image originally captured with a pre 1.2.0 version of FOG?

Also could you post the results of this command? ls -la /images/DellLatitudeE6320model What I’m thinking is the image format may be the older style. We can fix this, I just need to be sure. We “may” also have to get a developer to look at this since I don’t remember the older version of fog anymore.

[mimi1255]

@george1421 Below the result:
administrateur@SRVFOG:/images$ ls -la /images/DellLatitudeE6320model
total 3172580
drwxrwxrwx 2 administrateur administrateur 4096 févr. 16 08:23 .
drwxrwxrwx 14 root root 4096 févr. 16 09:19 …
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 2 févr. 16 08:23 d1.fixed_size_partitions
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 15 févr. 16 08:23 d1.original.fstypes
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 259 févr. 16 08:23 d1.original.partitions
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 0 févr. 16 08:23 d1.original.swapuuids
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 8673377 févr. 16 08:23 rec.img.000
-rwxrwxrwx 1 administrateur administrateur 3240019543 févr. 16 08:24 sys.img.000

[george1421]

@mimi1255 I would say that looks like the older format (just guessing since its not the same structure as one of my images).

So what we need to enable is a FOG option to let you show the Image Manager in the on the image definition page.

Go to this FOG setting and enable it.
FOG Configuration->FOG System Settings->General Settings(section)->FOG_FORMAT_FLAG_IN_GUI

Then go back to the image definiton and change the Image Manager from partclone to partimage.

[george1421]

@george1421 just for clarity this is what a Partclone format looks like.

d1.fixed_size_partitions  d1.original.fstypes    d1p2.img
d1.mbr                    d1.original.swapuuids  d1p3.img
d1.minimum.partitions     d1p1.img               d1.partitions

[mimi1255]

@george1421 I tried again, I changed the OS and the Image type. And now it works. !
But is it possible to know settings for each old image (OS, image type, etc…) ?

Thanks.

[george1421]

@mimi1255 I don’t feel 100% confident with this statement (simply since I don’t have any experience with 1.2.0 stable or before).

I would say if the directory has this file sys.img.000 then its in partimage format. If it has d1p1.img it is (current FOG 1.3.x) partclone format. As for the OS, I would hope you knew what the captured image was. The other option like you found out is trial and error.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 from the list of files in that image’s directory, that was definitely not a partimage image. any image folder that contains the files
d1.fixed_size_partitions
d1.original.fstypes
d1.original.partitions
d1.original.swapuuids
are partclone

image folders that contain image files with the naming format
rec.img.000
sys.img.000
also may be partclone, from before the naming convention was changed

[george1421]

@Junkhacker Well then my confidence level now is 0% I know what I’m speaking about.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 well, unfortunately, the file naming conventions and formatting hasn’t always been the clearest. it’s gotten a lot better, even if i don’t think what we use now is perfect

[Wayne Workman]

@mimi1255 If your current issues are not related to the original problem in this thread, please start a new thread - and we will gladly help you there.