Posts made by braindead

Thanks! I’ll try that out when I get to the office.

I think it’s a bug, but I’m not sure.

When I try downloading different kernels, I’m getting the following error:

FOGFTP: Failed to put file. Remote Path: /var/www/fogservice/ipxe/bzImage32, Local Path: /tmp/bzImage32, Error: ftp_put(): Could not create file.

It looks like a “/” is missing between fog and service so that it looks like /var/www/fog/service/ipxe/bzImage32.

Is there a way I quickly fix it? I tried debugging in Firefox, but my php skills aren’t that great.

Thanks.

[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 34547, member: 7271”]SVN 2121 adds this request.[/quote]

Well fine, then. Be on top of things, why don’t ya! </sarcasm>

Thanks.

Perhaps a silly request because the link is at the footer of each page, but could there maybe be a link to download the FOG client service application on the main service configuration page (<server>/fog/management/index.php?node=service)?

This is just a nicety and makes the link for the service easier to find for new folks, and, admittedly, it took me awhile to find the link and I never thought to look at the footer until I dug deeper into a forum discussion.

Just a thought.

Thanks.

Received a notice within the past few weeks in my Ubuntu 12.04.4 install that my ‘Hardware Enablement Stack’ was losing support on 08/07/14 and that I should upgrade. Being security-minded, and just annoyed with upgrade messages, I normally update these sorts of things, but I’m hesitant to upgrade to the Trusty kernel without researching it out.

So I’m wondering if there’s any FOG compatibility problems with the Trusty kernel. My plan wouldn’t be to perform a full upgrade to 14.04 server, just stick with 12.04, but with a kernel update.

Thoughts?

[S]Perhaps dumb question, but I can’t find a clear answer: where exactly do you download the client service application?[/S]

Searched a little harder and found it.

The Fog Client Service Application can be found at [url]http://<your[/url] fog server>/fog/client.

Jesus. Great job! As one who rights how-to’s myself, I know that took a lot of work. Thanks.

FWIW, I’ve found htop to be a lot more useful than top.

[quote=“ianabc, post: 31998, member: 24548”]This is really puzzling, I’ll dig around and see if I have one of those cards available for testing. I think you already checked this, but could you confirm that in the fog debug ethtool reports 1000Mb as the negotiated speed and that you switch also agrees that this is the negotiated speed?[/quote]

I no longer have them here to test, but I can say for certain that that they auto-negotiated to gigabit. Even the switch was reading the speed as gigabit.

[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 31960, member: 7271”]The kernel’s I’ve been building for quite some time have these drivers included already.

Otherwise, they wouldn’t work at all.[/quote]

Maybe there’s a problem with the Linux driver? Windows doesn’t seem to have the 100 Mbps problem that I had. The issue only appeared in FOG.

Finally got around to the testing this using your test, here’s my results:
[CODE]$/media/test$ sudo dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=zeros conv=fdatasync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 26.2786 s, 40.9 MB/s
$/media/test$ sudo dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=zeros conv=fdatasync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.3489 s, 44.1 MB/s
$/media/test$ sudo dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=zeros conv=fdatasync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 23.3077 s, 46.1 MB/s
$/media/test$ dd bs=1024M if=zeros of=/dev/null1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 12.7035 s, 84.5 MB/s
$/media/test$ dd bs=1024M if=zeros of=/dev/null
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 12.5741 s, 85.4 MB/s
$/media/test$
$/media/test$ dd bs=1024M if=zeros of=/dev/null
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 12.9285 s, 83.1 MB/s
$/media/test$ dd bs=1024M if=zeros of=/dev/null
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 13.0684 s, 82.2 MB/s
[/CODE]

I was completely perplexed with this issue. It almost seems like an update to 12.04 is causing this, because I updated Ubuntu 12.04 around the same time as upgrading FOG.

Other things I’ve tried that have zero changes:
[LIST]
[]Changing the kernel
[]Making sure /etc/exports has async
[]Changed the switch
[]Loaded FOG 1.0.1 on the iSCSI target and ran FOG from that
[/LIST]
Then, it suddenly occurred to me: I haven’t tested the server on a different machine.

(Facepalm)

I ran FOG on a completely different system/image, but one with comparable image size, and voila – speeds are back.

So here’s what I think the problem is: the laptops I was imaging – [U][URL=‘http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/product-and-parts/detail.page?DocID=PD030723’]Thinkpad Edge E540[/URL][/U] – runs one of these ethernet controllers: [SIZE=12px][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000]Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 PCIe GBE Ethernet Controller, and [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][U][SIZE=12px][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000][URL=‘http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=152180’]they [/URL][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/U][U][URL=‘http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=152180’]seem to have an issue with running at 100 Mbit even though it’s a gigabit interface[/URL][/U]. This correlates with my experience and the speeds that I was getting on those machines.

Perhaps, then, the kernels need an update to include those drivers? I’m not sure, but at the very least I wanted to report my findings.

PS- I think the hyperlink color should change, or at least add an underline like below. One word links seem to blend-in too well.

Also, thanks again for all the help.

Changed the compression and re-uploaded: no change.

Finally was able to check the NFS transfer speed: I had 26 MB/sec transferring to and from one VM to the FOG server. Apparently my 75 MB/sec was my transfer speed to/from the FOG server to the iSCSI disk.

So I’m left puzzled about what happened between now and then. I did some Ubuntu updates too.

Guess I have something to be puzzled about over the weekend.

[quote=“the_duke, post: 31751, member: 23777”]Ok, well I just put the install/repair disk that came with one of the laptops in one and I deleted all the partitions and am reinstalling windows. I just hope that it will sysprep properly this time around and be ok. Did you take a look at my unattend file and does that look good to you? I used a keyfinder and was able to obtain the key that way, I Xed out where I have the product key currently in the .xml file. Tom was saying to not have a product key field at all, so which is the way to go here?[/quote]

[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 31752, member: 7271”]You do not need to have a product key at all if you’re using the OEM disc![/quote]

As Tom said above, if you’re using the OEM disc, then don’t worry about the key. Not just that, I’ll defer to Tom’s opinion rather than mine, as I too am still getting this all understood myself.

I’ve never used OEM discs for our installs. We always get the systems downgraded already, then I just image them out.

@Tom and @Lee- Is the product key field not required when imaging from other OEM machines? Is this because of the preinstalled OS license on the bios? If so, what’s the point of the OEM:SLP key?

[quote=“the_duke, post: 31743, member: 23777”]When you say a generic OEM key, I thought generic keys didn’t activate windows. Also, where can you see the key in the bios?[/quote]

[S]I believe that the generic OEM key automatically activates Windows, because, IIRC, Windows will try to activate on its own after it’s started up.
[/S]Read below. OEM:SLP keys automatically activate when working with machines with preinstalled OS keys.

[quote=“the_duke, post: 31744, member: 23777”]I thought an OEM key could only be placed on 1 computer, if its on all 3 laptops that I received is it still an OEM key?[/quote]

Yes, an OEM key can only be on one computer, but this is regards to the OEM keys that are printed on the machines, or come with an OEM version of Windows.

What I’m referring to when I say ‘generic OEM key’ is a key that is only used on machines that have preinstalled licenses in the BIOS. For example, on these Lenovos I’m working on, there’s a line in the main section of the BIOS called “preinstalled OS license”. Microsoft has what keys called “Windows 7 Professional OEM:SLP” (System Locked Pre-Installation Key); i.e., the key is used in conjunction with Windows disks/ISOs that are used by OEM manufacturers that rely on the BIOS to activate the key. Volume installation images will not work this key, and neither will individual CD installs, be it OEM or retail disks.

These keys are specifically for manufactured machines.

That’s the way the crazy license world of Microsoft and these keys was explained to me. You’ll need to get that key from your vendor, then you can put that in your unattend file and as long as the machines are manufactured OEM machines with preinstalled keys, all will be well.

*The only change besides upgrading to 1.1.2.

I have restarted the switch already.

The only change that I made recently was that I changed the compression of the image from 9 to 3, then I changed it to 1.

I’m going to change that back and re-upload the image and see what that does.

I ran into a similar issue with downgrading to 7 from 8 with Lenovo machines. The way I understand OEM installs of Windows is that OEM licenses are attached to the BIOS of machines, so the only key you need with your unattend file is a generic OEM key that the system uses for activation. You shouldn’t have to worry about losing product keys.

At least that’s the way we’ve been doing it.

Former speeds on 1.0.1*

Unfortunately, this all on our in-shop network, so no Apple devices are connected, and it’s all connected to one switch.

I’m imaging Lenovo E540 laptops, and we had the former speeds with these same machines just a couple of days ago.

[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 31727, member: 7271”]Do you have a apple devices in your network? Specifically running on the bonjour side of things?

If you cut out the middle man as a test, do speeds improve? Here I mean take one of the “slow” clients and place them on the same switch as the FOG Server.[/quote]

[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 31724, member: 7271”]Are you running multicast or unicast?[/quote]

Unicast, and those speeds are based on one machine at a time.