Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- From: "Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)" <sbrcin@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:20:43 +0200
Rob,
You can remove all NetBIOS relates stuff like "NetBIOS over TCP/IP" and
services that you said and that depend on NetBIOS components.
tcp/ip core will function without NetBIOS.
I think that there should be even intergated support for network sharing
trough TCP/IP without NetBIOS but I was never able to make it work, I guess
that it require some kind of service on some server machine.
Hopefuly without NetBIOS you will not have any more name conflicts on the
net.
Regards,
Slobodan
"Rob White" <RobWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9AA33A69-8D15-43E2-ADFD-3ADB4B9C69D3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The FBA runs through like a charm, the image's do get a new name and we
> have
> no duplicate MAC addresses (the machines use DHCP, so we'd have IP
> conflicts
> and a bunch of other network problems if this was the case). KM, I know it
> sounds unlikely, but we do have name clashes, currently our fix is to
> rename
> the machines manually, which in our current configuration is tolerable,
> but
> in a large scale roll out will become untenable.
>
> If I remove "Client Services for Microsoft Networks" and "File and Printer
> Sharing for Microsoft Networks" from my connection properties / image,
> then
> leave the machines with the same network name, what sort of impact would
> this
> have on the network? Would the NetBIOS stuff go through the roof, or would
> the network simply die horribly? All I need in terms of connectivity are
> ftp
> and tcp comms.
>
> "KM" wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> During the cloning you should see the FBA blue screen with some
>> information on it regarding the system preparation (progress bar
>> text).
>>
>> Even if you happen to have the same MAC address on all machines (very
>> unlikely) and the same seed for generator there is a bunch of
>> other parameters involving in the generating unique SIDs (time, etc.) and
>> I doubt you are going to get 15 machines with the same
>> names out of 80 (the probability of the same values would probably be
>> very very less).
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> KM, BSquare Corp.
>>
>> PS. By blue screen I don't mean BSOD screen but just a blue screen with
>> some text on it.
>>
>>
>> > The cmiGenerateComputerName is set to 1, there is an ewf, but prior to
>> > cloning it is not enabled (this is done via calls to ewfdll.dll and
>> > then the
>> > ewfmgr at a later date). There were no blue screens or anything that
>> > looks
>> > wrong. The names are generated, they just seem be generated the same,
>> > also
>> > this morning I noticed yet another name clash. How is the name
>> > generated? Is
>> > it based on the MAC address, or does it just use the random number
>> > generator
>> > in windows? My concern is that if it uses the windows random number
>> > generator, then all the machines will have the same seed and the same
>> > entropy
>> > sources, which will never allow a random enough number.
>> >
>> > Also, the machine name, how does it work in a remote boot environment,
>> > is
>> > there any kind of arbitration, or does the remote boot manager set them
>> > as it
>> > sends the image out?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Rob
>> >
>> >
>> > "KM" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rob,
>> > >
>> > > Was the cmiGenerateComputerName advanced property of the "System
>> > > Cloning Tool" component set to "1" in your Configuration?
>> > > Are you sure those 15 terminals were cloned properly? (did you see
>> > > the FBA blue screen on the first boot after the cloning)?
>> > > Do you use EWF and if you do - do you commit after the seal?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Regards,
>> > > KM, BSquare Corp.
>> > >
>> > > PS. Are you planning on remote booting the 1000 terminals with MS
>> > > RBS? Please be aware that it only supports unicast TFTP and
>> > > wouldn't be a good solution for booting > 10 devices (this certainly
>> > > depends on network environment, capacity, etc.).
>> > >
>> > > > I'm using the System Cloning Tool to name my machines, now I seal
>> > > > the image,
>> > > > clone the drives and put the drives in our terminals. However, on a
>> > > > sample of
>> > > > only 80 images we've had about 15 network name clashes. Is there a
>> > > > setting
>> > > > that I have to have change, or is there a top limit that the
>> > > > machines will
>> > > > safely clone to?
>> > > >
>> > > > My concern is that we are toying with the idea of using remote boot
>> > > > systems
>> > > > that will have in the order of a 1000 units. Will we end up in the
>> > > > situation
>> > > > where large numbers of our terminals will have name clashes?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for any information you might have.
>> > > > Rob
>> > > > --
>> > > > .Net Development Engineer
>> > > > ECM Systems Ltd
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- From: Rob White
- Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- From: KM
- Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- From: Rob White
- Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- From: KM
- Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- Prev by Date: Re: BootPrep / FixBoot
- Next by Date: unknown publisher - firewall
- Previous by thread: Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- Next by thread: Re: Problem with the System Cloning Tool
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
