Help Deploying a ghost image to 100+ pc's

emmo16

Hi,

I am trying to simply setup and configure a PXE server that my client machines can network boot to and pull down an image. I do not want to use a disc or usb drive I need to be able to PXE boot from any of my client machines and pull down an image from a central location. We normally use bootable usb drives with the image on them to do this but we just got in an order of 125 pc's.

- here's what i have done so far:
Installed Gohost Suite 2.5, the 3Com Boot Services.
Created a TCP/IP Network Boot Image with the Ghost Boot Wizard. All on one pc connected to an 8 port hub in a workgroup. I am using tftpboot32 for the DHCP server. I have followed these instructions to the T. http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH110129&locale=en_US

The problem I am having is that when I network boot the client it gets an Ip address but fails connecting to tftp I get the error PXE-T00 unspecified file opening error detected. Also the ghostcast server does not see the client.

Could anybody give me some help in deploying a image to multiple computer or point me to some instructions I have been looking for days with no luck.

niallb

Hi.
your problem is more likely to be in DHCP than in the TFTP server.

Your DHCP server needs to pass on to the PXE client the info on how to reach the TFTP server. It does not have to be on the same machine as the DHCP server.
In bind, the tftp servername is called 'next-server' - you may need to adjust accordingly for your server. The imagename to request is sent as 'filename'. The equivalents should be under "Additional" in 3com boot services.

Check the logs on the tftp server to see if your client is asking for anything at all.
It should normally display some useful info on screen as to what it's looking for - based on the IP address it has received. If you see nothing in the logs, try turning that PC's firewall off, or make sure you're on the same network segment.

If none of that ghosty stuff works for you and you're running out of time,
take a look at this alternative: FOGproject.org
It's awesome - I've used it to do several hundred PCs in a morning on a good network.
It also gives you a lot more options than simply imaging.
You'll get that working from a default debian linux install by running a single script...
Yes. For windows targeted clients... :-)

woolymammoth

niallb wrote: »

If none of that ghosty stuff works for you and you're running out of time,
take a look at this alternative: FOGproject.org
It's awesome - I've used it to do several hundred PCs in a morning on a good network.

I've read about this thing before, how good is it really, in your opinion? Recommend in a heartbeat kinda stuff? Have used Ghost before, but to be honest I haven't had much use for imaging in a few years.

BaconZombie

Clonezilla Server FTW!!!!

niallb

If it came to recommending clonezilla, I'd need to think a little about people's technical level, whereas Fog saves so much work, that if you need to know it exists, you will love it.
Definite "In a heartbeat" territory.

For the scenario described here, FOG is a much better fit (Edit: IMHO).
There was an interview with the developers earlier in the year on this podcast; have a listen to get a bit of a feel for it. It's just over an hour long, and fog is the main section.

The Tightwad Tech

Give it a listen to see how it has changed the way they work.

What FOG adds is an ability to group machines together, and deploy an image to that group - based on hardware, or function - your arbitrary choice.
It has a central web interface, so you can queue up tasks to be performed on the next boot.
It also allows you send a reboot request to individual or groups of machines,
allows for central distribution of printer settings, and various other scripts using a plugin system.
It also takes care of Unique ID problems in a single automated reboot once the machines have been imaged.
I know it's possible to do all this with Clonezilla server, but it's not as obvious.
I haven't used the current release 0.29. I use an older build, and it weren't broke!
The one negative comment I've heard about the most recent version is that the web interface is now very ajax heavy and requires a more powerful machine to run the browser on.

Clonezilla has its place of course!
For me that place is as a bootable partition on every external hard drive I own :-)
I use clonezilla at home and it also plays a part in my FOG setups.

I do have a server version available on the same PXE menu I set up for FOG,
as well as entries for a networked virus scanner, and a PartedMagic with flash and chrome installed to turn really dead machines into something useful until I can replace them.

emmo16

Thanks gyus. I will look into FOG and clonezilla. I dont have any experience with linux

I think the problem I might be having is that I am using a intel i5 XP pc as the server (I dont have access to a server or DHCP here) running tftp32 are there are not to many options. All plugged into an 8 port hub.

I have been trying to get 3com PXE TFTP and ghostcast to run together.

Ill post the tftp log in awhile.

niallb

The type of PC or the fact it's running XP should have no bearing here.
tftp is a very basic service.
Other software running on the machine may be relevant though.
Try again with any firewalls or antivirus software disabled.
Particularly if you have McAfee.
If that works, you'll need to configure around the new services.

BaconZombie

I'm going to be building an imaging Server next week to install a cloned Zero Touch Image { Windows XP using Windows 7 PE }.

If it works fine/ok I am post full details.

I've 120 systems {Desktop & Laptop} to image in the next two weeks.

Also if you replacing system have a look at Darik's Boot And Nuke { DBAN }, for PXE booting and wipe the system to DOD standards.

emmo16

That would be perfect and if I get mine up and running Ill post the steps also.

emmo16

I have mangaed to get the pc to pxe boot into ghost. I connected a Eircom braodband router to the hub for DHCP and to my surprise it worked and selecting proxy DHCP on the 3com PXE Server

The problem is that Gostcast is not seeing any clients and the client is not seeing the ghostcast Server and Im not sure why not. I have set it to Forcemode Multicast.

Im off till tuesday so Ill have another look then.

niallb

BaconZombie wrote: »

I'm going to be building an imaging Server next week to install a cloned Zero Touch Image { Windows XP using Windows 7 PE }.

Best of luck with the server. Is Zero Touch an automated installer disk?
Is there a lot of different models in the install group you're working with?
First time round I was lucky enough to be dealing with 200 out of box identical machines.
(Now, finding a supplier who would have shipped them set in the BIOS to PXE boot would have saved a lot of time!)

If you want to give FOG a testrun, install your image on one machine, and get it working just the way you like it, and then use FOG itself to create a suitable disk image.
You can then multicast it to the other machines.

As usual, preread the docs, and ymmv. Have fun!

emmo16

Would anyone know why the pc is booting into the ghost console and why the Ghost server is not picking up the client?

I was hoping to pxe boot all of the pc's and then use ghost cast to send the image out.

BaconZombie

Are the two in the same IP Range?

emmo16 wrote: »

Would anyone know why the pc is booting into the ghost console and why the Ghost server is not picking up the client?

I was hoping to pxe boot all of the pc's and then use ghost cast to send the image out.

Jumpy

Use Unicast. You have 10 machines, no point going to the bother of configuring Multicast.

Multicast is a "one to many" option that will reduce the overall time, but its a bitch to configure. Unicast will definitely be slower, but its only 10 machines.

Edit: Just re-read. Its 100 machines not 10. Ok You want Multicast for this. Make sure your network is configured to handle it. If your switch is not configured right it will flood your network and the only thing that will run while ghosting is your cast.

Additional edit: You only have a hub. Unicast it is.

Also turn off any Virus Scanner on the ghost server. McAfee is a known one to block ghost.

Jumpy

Hang on... wait what?


Are you using Ghostcast server or the Ghost Console?

If its Ghostcast, you need to configure the TFTP image to load ghost with the correct parameters to talk to the ghostcast session name (and server!) you are running.

Jumpy

ghost.exe -ja=ghostcastsessionname -jaddr=ghostserverip -sure


I think that should do it.

emmo16

At the moment I have just 1 pc connected to hub to test but maybe able to get a larger switch they are both in the same IP range. Sorry I meant to say the the pc was booting into the Ghost client not the console. I'll try the above. It's wierd the the ode and tftp sever see the client but the ghostcast dosent.

FruitLover

Jumpy wrote: »

Additional edit: You only have a hub. Unicast it is

I hope you're trying to say 'broadcast' here - using unicast for 100+ destination hosts would be ridiculous.

Jumpy

FruitLover wrote: »

I hope you're trying to say 'broadcast' here - using unicast for 100+ destination hosts would be ridiculous.

He has one 8 port hub. Its not a live network. Its specific for the job.

Jumpy

emmo16 wrote: »

At the moment I have just 1 pc connected to hub to test but maybe able to get a larger switch they are both in the same IP range. Sorry I meant to say the the pc was booting into the Ghost client not the console. I'll try the above. It's wierd the the ode and tftp sever see the client but the ghostcast dosent.

The ghost client can connect to the console depending on how you start it. The console is based on the server. Either way is ok to do it. I have ghosted literally thousands of machines using every variation of ghosting for about 12 years. All of them work, its just the speed and efficiency that varies.
All of them need tweaking. The only think that will work out of the box is disk to disk

Jumpy

Things to remember:

Multicast will send a single packet at a time that all machines will pick up. This means that all machines will ghost at the same speed. In most networks you need to ensure that you are set up for it.

Unicast is the equivalent of many machines trying to copy the same file at once from a network share. The more that try and access it, the slower it will be. But it will work on the cheapest of equipment.

FruitLover

I'm not sure you fully understand the implications of using unicast for this kind of traffic.

If broadcast is used, the host sends a single data stream which all hosts on the network can pick up (on a hub or non-multicast-capable switch, this is also what will happen if multicast is used).

If unicast is used, the host sends a data stream for each individual host, i.e. 100 times the data in this case.

Sending a large amount of data as a broadcast will flood the network (so temporarily using a dedicated hub/switch/vlan is probably best), but without multicast as an option, it's a tradeoff between this and waiting 100 times the length of time for the transfer (even in a test case with an 8-port hub and only 7 clients, you're still forced to wait 7 times the length of time as you would were the data broadcast instead).

emmo16

I have managed to get my hands on Server 2003 and installed this onto a virtual machine. DHCP with option 66 and 67 set and DNS are setup and running. I followed these instructions again http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH110129&locale=en_US to set the pxe tftp and ghost on the Server.

Once again the client PC is booting into the ghost client. But I have to manually select multicast and enter the session name and ghostcast will see the pc. The thing is I want it to automatically boot into this. I have set -ja=sessionname in the TCP/IP network Boot image.
Does anyone have any ideas what Im missing? Im not to worried how long the ghost cast will take Im happy if I even get 5 a day done at this stage.

emmo16

Everything is up and running for one model of pc. I added the parameters
-ja=sessionname -jaddr=ghostserverip -sure -JB to the boot disk.

I tested it on one of our old HP D530 pc's and it works perfect and ghosts in 10min. Now for the fun part the new pc's we got in are HP Compaq Elite 8100. They boot the ghost client but do not detect the Ghostcast session and ghost cast does not see them.

Jumpy

The ghost client uses specific network drivers that you select when creating the boot image file.

If you did not select the universal driver, then you are using a different driver for the network card. If you did select the universal driver, your cards may not be compatible and you will need to add the correct driver to the boot file.

You can get these from the manufacturer website (look for DOS drivers)

Jumpy

FruitLover wrote: »

I'm not sure you fully understand the implications of using unicast for this kind of traffic.

If broadcast is used, the host sends a single data stream which all hosts on the network can pick up (on a hub or non-multicast-capable switch, this is also what will happen if multicast is used).

If unicast is used, the host sends a data stream for each individual host, i.e. 100 times the data in this case.

Sending a large amount of data as a broadcast will flood the network (so temporarily using a dedicated hub/switch/vlan is probably best), but without multicast as an option, it's a tradeoff between this and waiting 100 times the length of time for the transfer (even in a test case with an 8-port hub and only 7 clients, you're still forced to wait 7 times the length of time as you would were the data broadcast instead).

The switches we use are multicast capable. Very handy as when you multicast to specific machines the only ports receiving the broadcast are those part of the casting.

This avoids the network flood and allows you to image the machines at the desk.

FruitLover

I know how multicast works mate, but you erroneously recommended using unicast earlier in this thread.

Jumpy

This thread is for answering the OPs questions, not for IT knowledge testicle weighing.

I was following on from your post, not replying to it.

funk-you

Guys,

Keep it civil or no-one can play. The forum is here to help, not argue.

-Funk

FruitLover

funk-you wrote: »

The forum is here to help, not argue.

I'd like to help the OP avoid wasting hours of his life by using a more efficient method of getting his required work done than was previously advised.

Jumpy

I agreed with you in post 19. Although looking back, its not exactly clear.