@Tom-Elliott I also updated to 1807 and it has fixed it for me as well. As always Tom you are a mad scientist and always figure out the issue. FOG Project is the fastest bug resolution of any software we use and I mean that sincerely. I appreciate this software and your dedication to it so much, thanks for everything!

A test for anyone having this issue. I did a little trouble shooting, and if you go to: Reports > Pending Mac List and approve all the pending mac addresses at once, performance improved somewhat.

I am unsure if this is coincidental but for me my “Hosts” tab is now much more responsive. Same thing with the “Fog Settings” tab. Give that a try. Certainly worked for me for the moment.

@Tom-Elliott Yes we utilize the LDAP Plugin for all logins. Version 1.5.5, I will tried logging in with a local account but the slowness persisted.

@Tom-Elliott I collected both log files and sent them to you directly via “Chat”. you should see all of them in there. Thanks so much for investigating this issue.

@Tom-Elliott Thank you for looking into this. Are there any log files from my setup I can provide that would help you? For reference, my server environment is:

Dell Poweredge R620
2x Intel Xeon E5-2640vs 2ghz CPUs
128 Gb ram
Alma Linux 9.7
Fog 1.5.10.1804 (was 1798)

@Infojoe I am getting this exact same issue. Very long load times on the “Hosts” and “FOG Configuration” pages. Additionally there is a number now appended to the front of all the hosts for some reason.

I updated to the latest dev branch version 1.5.10.1804 hoping for a fix, but alas, no change. I applied patches to Alma Linux 9.7 and rebooted but still seeing high CPU on several processes including apache. I am happy to test anything and everything to assist in fixing this issue.

@george1421 Thank you for this suggestion. This disabling of “fastboot” worked PERFECTLY! I interrupted the OOBE with Shift + F10 and got the command line window. I shutdown using the “shutdown.exe -s -t 0” command you suggested. Then after booting up, the FOG capture task I had already started took over and it captured 100% as it should have.

Essentially, I had forgotten to disable fastboot like I normally do on EVERY computer I have. So when it “rebooted” it technically wasn’t rebooting the device since fastboot is a misguided absurd hibernation feature Microsoft developed. The error I got was nearly identical to the one in the original post.

Thanks so much for this suggestion George and all!

@Tom-Elliott Thank you so much Tom, as always I appreciate your support and guidance.

@Tom-Elliott

So, does that mean I should install the new one at the top? Or do I have the new one already by virtue of installing back in July? Sorry versioning gets confusing for me. Also what is FOS?

Our Fog instance updated to Kernel version 6.12.35 sometime over the summer. Since then new Kernel versions have been showing up under the Fog Configuration > Kernel Update menu per normal. The version number on these new versions however keep showing 6.12.35, the same that we already have. The first 6.12.35 shows July 15th as the date, but the newest 6.12.35 shows October 14th as the date.

Is this a bug only affecting us? Should we just update to the new version even though it shows the same number? Anyone else experiencing this? I just want to make sure I have the latest Kernel for new devices we purchase. Thanks everyone!

@Clebboii A workaround that always worked for me that was recommended by Tom was to use the full DNS name rather than the IP address. I was initially logging into the UI through the IP, and found that very same issue. When he mentioned it and I started using the full DNS name, the issue went away.

Simply Installing “Postfix” on Alma Linux and rebooting the server did the trick. After the server came back up, I successfully deployed an image, and afterwards the email came through without an issue. Had all the information filled out appropriately as well. Thank you very much Tom!

Requesting a feature addition in the “FOG Settings > FOG Email Settings” section that would allow an admin to test whether or not email is working. This would be similar to other programs that have a “test email” button with a box of who to send the test email to.

Or perhaps some built in logic to test if postfix or other email prereqs that FOG needs to send email post image deployment.

@Tom-Elliott As usual Tom you are a genius. I had forgotten to add the individual search domains for our active directory domains. Once I added those, and waited the requisite amount of time you mentioned, the machines that are on came back and now I can see them in the interface. This was super helpufl and I sincerely appreciate all the effort and insight you folks give into this great product.

For those experiencing the same issue on mainstream linux distros, navigate to your “resolv.conf” config file located in /etc/resolv.conf and add your individual search domains. Test a ping to a DNS name via command line on the box itself, then check your GUI again. Took about 2 minutes for it to reflect and show for me.

@Tom-Elliott

I thought FOG used “sendmail” so I installed that on the box. I am working on FOG version 1.6, and i copied over the settings from my previous working FOG install, but I suspect the email software on linux itself not being configured is where the issue is.

We do have an internal SMTP server that I could relay to, if that is a possibility. I would just need to know where in linux to configure that relay. I guess what I need is where to start looking for email config using sendmail, or some other built in linux mail program.

Version 1.5.10.1629
Environment - Dell Poweredge server running Alma Linux 9.5
FOG client 0.13

We recently migrated to a new FOG server (Wanted newer/better hardware). While FOG installed, and is functioning when capturing and deploying images, the “OS Details” feature on the “Hosts” screen shows a red exclamation mark for all new hosts we attach. Previously on the old server, it would sometimes glitch and show the exclamation mark. Now ALL of them show this. Am I missing a setting in the FOG client or Windows firewall setting on the host PC? While the feature isn’t critical, it was nice to see all green across the board. Thanks everyone!

Version 1.5.10.1629
Environment - Dell Poweredge server running Alma Linux 9.5

We recently migrated to a new FOG server (Wanted newer/better hardware). While FOG installed, and is functioning, the email function that occurs post successful image deploy no longer works.

I installed sendmail on the linux server, and set the settings in FOG Configuration > FOG Settings > FOG Email Settings to match the settings on our old server. Is there something I am missing? Did I have to modify a config somewhere or something? Or add in settings to sendmail to get this to work? Any assistance would be appreciated as this was a nice feature we enjoyed.

Version 1.5.10.1629
Environment - Dell Poweredge server running Alma Linux 9.5

Not to dredge up an old forum post, but I experienced this same error after migrating from an old CentOS server to newer hardware and Alma Linux. (What apparently many are moving to now).

For me the issue seemed to be related to trying to pull an image from a laptop that had the previous client on it. I have 2 computers that I use as dedicated imaging devices, 1 laptop and 1 desktop. I uninstalled the old FOG client, but when installing the new client and attempting to point it to the server, I got the CA Certificate error mentioned on the “Pinning” stage of the install. I tried to find an old cert on the device itself, with no luck.

What I ended up attempting after doing a little digging was to add back the following Windows firewall rules. I did that, and it seemed to kick over immediately and installed on the very next try. I am unsure if this is coincidence or if the firewall rules truly needed to be on the device before installing. But it worked after that and I now have a successfully pulled base image like I utilized on the previous server. The rules I used in an elevated command prompt are below. Perhaps someone from the FOG community can comment on the accuracy of my firewall rules? Good luck and hope this helps someone in need!

netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog Client” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGService.exe”
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog Shutdown” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGShutdownGUI.exe”
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog Tray” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGTray.exe”
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog Update Helper” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGUpdateHelper.exe”
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog Update Waiter” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGUpdateWaiter.exe”
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=“Fog User Service” dir=in action=allow program=“%ProgramFiles(x86)%\FOG\FOGUserService.exe”

UPDATE

After some investigation, I found that if I connect to FOG using the FQDN, the Kernel versions show. If I connect via IP address, which I had been previously, it doesn’t show. This was on a machine with our Endpoint protection enabled. On a machine without any endpoint protection, both IP and FQDN show the Kernel versions. Strange, must be some sort of overzealous web protection on the part of our endpoint software. Thanks for your help @Tom-Elliott !!!

@Tom-Elliott Correct, in yours you see the bzImage and arm_image, but in mine it is totally blank for some reason. Been like this for quite a while and I have no clue what I did to cause it. Unless it is potentially just a browser issue or something with my PC only?