Foreman 1.6.1 + Vsphere 5.5U1 template/image deployment is broken for virtual distributed switches

Foreman is deploying VM's from a template, but they are being deployed with
broken VDS references.

The VM template has a default VDS port group assigned, but that reference
seem to get misaligned to a "standard port group" somewhere along the way
during the deployment. Plus, if you select a different distributed port
group during deployment is doesn't modify the assignment either.

Help, anyone, please, much appreciated.

http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/7740

Is there any commercial support offering for Foreman? I would love to
throw money at this problem to get VMWARE working properly with Foreman.

··· On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Friedrich Seifts wrote: > > Foreman is deploying VM's from a template, but they are being deployed > with broken VDS references. > > The VM template has a default VDS port group assigned, but that reference > seem to get misaligned to a "standard port group" somewhere along the way > during the deployment. Plus, if you select a different distributed port > group during deployment is doesn't modify the assignment either. > > Help, anyone, please, much appreciated. > > http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/7740 >

I've seen the same issue on our VMware environment. Right now i'm just
kickstarting images. It takes just a couple of minutes, but it would be
nice if image cloning worked and came up with networking when done. I did
notice however when even using the vsphere gui that it says changing
hardware during clone is an experimental feature or something like that…

-byron

··· On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 at 10:44:13 AM UTC-6, Friedrich Seifts wrote: > > Foreman is deploying VM's from a template, but they are being deployed > with broken VDS references. > > The VM template has a default VDS port group assigned, but that reference > seem to get misaligned to a "standard port group" somewhere along the way > during the deployment. Plus, if you select a different distributed port > group during deployment is doesn't modify the assignment either. > > Help, anyone, please, much appreciated. > > http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/7740 >

I upgraded to 1.7.1 , still have the bug with VDS and templates. At this
point it seems the only way to use foreman in any enterprise environment
would be to kickstart VM's. Its so terribly inefficient.

··· On Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, Friedrich Seifts wrote: > > Is there any commercial support offering for Foreman? I would love to > throw money at this problem to get VMWARE working properly with Foreman. > > On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Friedrich Seifts wrote: >> >> Foreman is deploying VM's from a template, but they are being deployed >> with broken VDS references. >> >> The VM template has a default VDS port group assigned, but that reference >> seem to get misaligned to a "standard port group" somewhere along the way >> during the deployment. Plus, if you select a different distributed port >> group during deployment is doesn't modify the assignment either. >> >> Help, anyone, please, much appreciated. >> >> http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/7740 >> >

Red Hat sells foreman as Satellite 6. Not sure how current they are on
versions.

You probably have a lot of work in your image file but the kickstart is
very fast. I have a 1Gbe network and the kickstart process is only about 5
minutes. If you have pre-installed apps on your image then yes it would be
inefficient assuming they're not RPM/yum based.

Is there any update or fix on this ? I have the exact same problem and we
need the solution in urgent.

23 Aralık 2014 Salı 01:24:59 UTC+2 tarihinde Zachary Herner yazdı:

··· > > Red Hat sells foreman as Satellite 6. Not sure how current they are on > versions. > > You probably have a lot of work in your image file but the kickstart is > very fast. I have a 1Gbe network and the kickstart process is only about 5 > minutes. If you have pre-installed apps on your image then yes it would be > inefficient assuming they're not RPM/yum based. >