@Sebastian-Roth as well as all the others ( @developers @moderators @testers )

Would we want anything besides kernel information? I had some ideas:

Number of hosts
Number of images
Number of each type of image
Number of systems imaged in the last 7 days
Number of storage nodes
Number of storage groups
Other things?

It’s been said before, but will say it again. This is all anonymous data. There is no way to correlate this data back to any system.

It just provides us insight (and possibly bragging rights). imagine us being able to say “FOG imaged a bazillion systems last week, we’re proud of that” or maybe “FOG assists with managing a quadrillion million computer systems every day”. I’m being funny with the imaginary figures here, but you get the idea. It’d be nice to make statements like that on the home page fogproject.org

I am totally geeking out hearing this! The film technology they used is also quite fascinating.

@EduardoTSeoane It will be interesting to see how optimization works for you. With the size of your campus we may need to split the database from the FOG server to give the sql database more CPU time. We need feedback from large campuses like you have to help with performance tuning of FOG.

@Quazz Not sure from the top of my head. Thanks for finding this!! I will take a look later on.

@Wayne-Workman Sorry this has been without attention for a long time! Not only this topic but all the others:

https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/11868/how-to-change-colors-on-bandwidth-graph
https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/11999/bandwidth-line-colours
https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/6912/can-i-change-the-colors-of-the-tx-rx-graph

I played with the things mentioned in the other topics and figured that it seems to pick colors just by itself if we don’t force it to use our colors. When I remove the color scheme as described I get the following picture:

fog-bandwidth.jpg

Please vote if you find this appropriate. Sure the more nodes you have the less obvious distinct colors there are. But from it’s still better than using a successive shade of whatever color you start from.

I’ve tested this in three different browsers on a Linux machine. I would imagine this working nicely on Windows and Mac OS browsers as well. What do you think @Tom-Elliott?

I rebuilt my master and slave from scratch. Everything worked as expected, this topic can be resolved.

Just close it. Maybe I’ll put together a Galera tutorial one of these days for FOG.

I made the changes and did a test run, dev-branch completely passed.

@Wayne-Workman Probably one of the configs were changed and the updater is asking what to do. The best I could find quickly is: https://serverfault.com/questions/259226/automatically-keep-current-version-of-config-files-when-apt-get-install/593640

Try: apt-get update;DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get dist-upgrade -y -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confdef" -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confold" --force-yes

What a monster of a command…

Thanks to Wayne I had access to the RHEL 7 machine for a quick test and seems like we hit it with the latest fix. Installer went through like a charm. So RHEL is back in the race I suppose.

@Wayne-Workman Ahhh, now I see. Looking at the certificate on the website I see that there was a new one issued not long ago. Certificate date begins at 08.05.2018! Just wondering why I don’t run into the same issue. Maybe your git is keeping some kind of certificate cache?

Removed. Well, kept the surface-pro-4 matching element, but just removed the 7156 portion.

@Wayne-Workman thanks for reporting, the issue has been fixed. It was caused by the anti-spam plugin being stale.