Does WDS work over WiFi ?
Posts made by Wayne Workman
-
RE: Windows 10
OSX is designed to only run on Mac hardware (even though it’s been broken)…
How about when the entire smart phone industry tried vehemently to prevent jail breaking and rooting, till federal regulators said they shouldn’t… [url]http://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/[/url]
I don’t think some manufacturers care, and it’s quite possible that there would be a demand for machines that DO have secure boot irreversibly in place… Think about finance systems, bank systems, heck - even small business owners… that want to make SURE nobody can just load up a live-Linux CD and access their files, or boot from some live-flash drive…
How about this… You’re looking to buy a new computer, but you don’t know anything beyond basic usage to get a task done… You go to the store and have an employee help you pick one out. The employee says “This one is a little more secure because it has ‘Secure Boot’ on it, and this other one which costs the same doesn’t have it”
Which one would you pick?
-
RE: Latest Development FOG
Question… What was the last SVN revision released that didn’t use the new client? And how good of a build is it?
I’m thinking about upgrading but I’m not necessarily wanting to use the new client just yet, we have a lot of computers here running the old one.
Also, another question…
What happens to the old clients out in production when the new client is enabled on the FOG server?
-
RE: Using FOG as DHCP server
If you’ve set up an isolated V-Lan,
This will probably be the most simple FOG install, ever.
Probably just one consideration… Make sure Multicast is configured right on your v-lan… BUT, you don’t have to worry about it at the moment if you’re not sure. And, it might be fine already.
You want to get unicast working first, since it’s simpler; then try multicast next.
So, go for it.
Let us know how it goes.
-
RE: Request: Delayed, Asynchronous Sequential Wake-on-LAN Packets
I keep forgetting about hubs…
Good job, Uncle Frank.
Theoretically, if you had a 1gbps hub, you could slide that in between your DHCP server and switch… and monitor traffic that way too… I would definitely not try it if the hub was consumer grade… you need a NICE hub to do that, and it needs to be during down-time.
-
RE: Images in /images/dev
Is your firewall off?
iptables -L
[url]https://wiki.debian.org/iptables[/url]What happens when you use a web browser and try to go to:
[url]ftp://x.x.x.x[/url]
with the x’s being the FOG server IP, of course.
It should ask for credentials. You SHOULD be able to use the Debian Fog user. So, username should be fog, or Fog, or FOG (don’t remember)… and whatever password is set for it…
Maybe make sure that your storage management stuff is configured, look at your Node settings, make sure the right path, username, and password are there.
Also, if you need to, just change the Fog user’s password, and then update the password inside the storage node.
Let us know.
-
RE: Request: Delayed, Asynchronous Sequential Wake-on-LAN Packets
[quote=“loosus456, post: 44757, member: 26317”]
So, is there anything client-wise or network-wise (maybe using something like WireShark) that I can do myself to help determine where the problem is, at least?[/quote]I want to help, but we need to get away from what you can’t change and get back to basic trouble shooting, and look for alternatives.
FYI, searching the web, I found one (1) page talking about PXE booting DHCP wait times:
[url]http://blogs.technet.com/b/dominikheinz/archive/2011/03/18/dhcp-amp-pxe-basics.aspx[/url]
And that says clients wait for 60 seconds…
Here’s a VERY interesting post from this site:
There’s a comment that says (hate for the resource to disappear):
[QUOTE]usually bypass the portfast requirement by making hosts do the extended memory check in the bios (not sure about Cisco but HP and IBM allow this setting) by the time the host boots to PXE everything is able to forward. UEFI systems also seem to slow up the boot process. I’m not saying the portfast option won’t work but sometimes it’s a tough sell to the “that’s the way we do things” networking types. This has worked everytime and everywhere I’ve tried it, without network intervention.[/QUOTE]So, you may want to try to enable the LONG bios check… maybe it’ll work… who knows? According to that guy, it will. Apparently, it just gives the switches a little more time to register all the MACs, and maybe the DHCP server a little more time, too… ? MAYBE you could even stagger turning on the LONG check, so that half the systems boot up fast, and the other half not so fast… It’s not pretty, but it’d break the DHCP load into two heaps instead of one.
What version of FOG are you using?
HOW MANY clients can work at once when WOL’ing for imaging? You don’t have to image to test your specific problem. Send out a MemTest task to 50 hosts, 75, 100, and so on.
Try this test in different areas. Try several switches away from the DHCP server, and then try clients that are connected to the switch that DHCP is actually on…
If you’re in a computer lab, keep eyes on a row or two, watch which ones don’t work. Make note of them. Try those systems with MemTest individually. See what happens.
Ask you’re network guys if PortFast is enabled on the network, ask them if DHCP helper addresses are configured (PortFast is likely to help the most).
As far as WireShark goes, there’s not much to do with it in this scenario honestly… It’d be beneficial to install it on the DHCP server and see what’s happening, but you don’t have access. And I’m going to guess that asking the Network guys to just turn off DHCP so you can configure DHCP on FOG isn’t an option either (you be the judge of that).
Please let us know your thoughts/findings. We’re here to help, even with the tough problems.
-
RE: Storage Node health check
I might try to take a crack at this…
I’ll be setting up a FOG server at home to play with, soon.
-
RE: Storage Node health check
Also, (and this is sort of related) how hard would it be for the new client and the web-GUI (and perhaps a locally running service) to perform a bandwidth throughput test? and then show statistics about that?
-
Storage Node health check
How hard would it be to implement some basic test writes & test reads to the storage node’s image location?
Basically, write a dummy file of 1GB (or a specified size), time how long it takes. Read the file back, time how long it takes, then delete the file, and time that too. Then show those statistics in the web GUI.
-
RE: Windows 10
According to those, Microsoft isn’t requiring UEFI to be optional for hardware manufacturers… which means hardware designers may make it non-optional.
This would only affect new hardware, obviously.
Still though, it’s a huge issue as far as FOG is concerned.
-
RE: Feature Request, Anonymous Data Collection To Improve Development
It’s definitely the place to start though.
The code just probably needs updated to work with the current versions.
Should also make sure the receiving server is still operational…
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
Just thought of something…
Could you do a health-test on the FOG server’s image storage drive?
If it’s failing, that will explain what you’re seeing.
-
RE: Windows 10
There’s been roomers on the internet that Windows 10 will require UEFI, and not allow it to be disabled.
This might not apply to the Demo…
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
The device you’re using, T540p, isn’t listed in the problematic devices or working devices, in the WiKi.
Are you experiencing the slow imaging speeds on every client? Or just clients of this model?
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
I agree with Tom, that you should try to image /w the client on the same switch as the FOG server.
Speed may not be the issue, but something else might be. Eliminating variables in the problem is the name of the game.
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
One last test, please.
Did you do the Iperf test from the troublesome client?
If not, can you re-run the Iperf from that client to the FOG server and post those speeds?
Thanks.
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
With that kind of throughput, you can eliminate the switch, patch cables, and NICs, and NIC drivers from the equation…
This is definitely something with FOG… Maybe FOG Configuration, Maybe the drivers that it’s distributing via the kernel… maybe…
What version of FOG are you using? what SVN version? What’s the model of the computer you’re testing the problematic imaging with? What kernel version are you using for the network booting?
-
RE: Windows 10
[quote=“Tom Elliott, post: 44712, member: 7271”]Windows 10 currently works. The question should be when Windows 10 is released, how will it work if Secure Boot is required hence requiring a UEFI system?[/quote]
The problem of a mixed environment (undionly.kpxe and ipxe.efi) keeps coming up…
We gotta tackle this for ProxyDHCP using Windows Server…
If I just HAD a UEFI device, I could work on it…
-
RE: Another Slow Upload and Download Speed Thread
new network equipment anywhere?
new router? Switch? Active and/or Passive Intrusion Detection System?
When was the last time the FOG server was rebooted? Is it virtualized?
Have you done simple stuff yet like re-seat the FOG server’s patch cable? Test the cable? Replace the cable?
Maybe something happened to it’s NIC? When was the FOG server’s last OS update? Maybe try a throughput test using [U][URL=‘http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iperf’]Iperf[/URL][/U] ?