Actually, I think the foreman bug attached is related to a 'clone' (Template provison) and not a 'create' (PXE provision).  However I did find this:

/usr/share/foreman/app/models/compute_resources/foreman/model/vmware.rb

    def vm_instance_defaults
      super.merge(
        :memory_mb  => 768,
        :interfaces => [new_interface],
        :volumes    => [new_volume],
        :scsi_controller => { :type => scsi_controller_default_type },
        :datacenter => datacenter,
        :firmware => 'automatic',
        :boot_order => ['network', 'disk']
      )
    end


The boot order default should be reversed for a PXE to ['disk', 'network'].  I am confirming this will fix the issue now.

Confirmed.  Switching the :boot_order fixed the issue.  I believe the :boot_order option set to ['network', 'disk'] is the safer approach and will get around this problem.

Ugh.  Ignore the above comment.  I meant to say:

I believe the :boot_order option set to ['disk', 'network'] is the safer approach and will get around this problem.

I think booting from network is needed for network based provisioning. If you need to rebuild the host, you just change tftp config and restart the vm. PXE loop happens if at the end of provisioning, Anaconda callback does not inform Satellite, that VM is built. Please provide Satellite production.log from time, when the kickstart runs %post.

Marek,

You are correct that booting from network is necessary for PXE based builds, however, booting from the network as the preferred device is not necessary.

For the first time boot up, if the order is set as ['disk','network'], the system will attempt to boot from disk first.  Of course, there is no boot device on the disk on first boot, so it will boot from network.


Are you saying that the callback to Satellite that the system was built will prevent this boot loop?  What about the Satellite 6.2 customers who migrated their scripts, such as myself?  That will leave them in a state where they will be in this boot loop until they fix the discrepancy between 6.2 and 6.3...e.g.:

6.3 Callback:

wget -q -O /dev/null --no-check-certificate <%= foreman_url('built') %>

6.2 Callback:

wget -q -O /dev/null --no-check-certificate <%= foreman_url %>


I did find that I had to change this in my provisioning template in order to finally show the system as 'built' and not 'pending', but I have a feeling people will be migrating scripts and might not catch this one.

Overall, I feel setting ['disk','network'] is a much, much safer approach here without changing functionality.

-Dustin

Disclaimer from above:

I started with Satellite 6.2.4, and have been updating ever since.  The 6.3.0 is built as a fresh instance with ported post-scripts/provisioning templates.

wget -q -O /dev/null --no-check-certificate <%= foreman_url %>


^^^ that may have come from an earlier version of satellite, but I don't think it's unrealistic that customers might hit this situation.

> Are you saying that the callback to Satellite that the system was built will prevent this boot loop?

yes, as you figured out, in 6.3 it's required to pass type of foreman_url as an argument, otherwise it would be different url. I understand the change can be painful if you're using customized templates. I'm afraid we failed documenting this upgrade step. Unfortunately we can't upgrade customized templates automatically as foreman_url is still valid and in other context can be used without 'build' argument (or with different one). With the new url, the PXE configuration should be updated as desired and once the system is provisioned, PXE should point booting to local disk. Therefore even if network is before disk, it continues booting from the disk.

I'm moving this BZ to documentation so that it's documented 6.3 upgrade step.

Is there an underlying reason to boot in this order > ['network', 'disk'] that I am missing here?

I still feel that it is much safer to boot via ['disk', 'network' ] and is the much cleaner solution that relying upon an API call at the end of a build process to break us out of the boot loop.  Understood that the API call is still necessary to inform Satellite that we are built, but from a safety standpoint, wouldn't it be really bad if that API call never happened (networking issue) and these systems continue to reboot and build via PXE?

Again, there might be something I'm missing that is driving the network device to be the priority boot device, but I'm not seeing it.  Just trying to clarify, as I don't think [ 'network', 'disk' ] is a proper solution from what I've seen thus far.

Hello

Info on the foreman_url was added to Release Notes recently


https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/release_notes/release_information#known_issues

Hello Dustin

Can you help to check where we should update the guides?

The "Upgrading and Updating Red Hat Satellite" guide has:

2.5.1. Upgrading Discovery[1]



The "Managing Hosts" guide has:
6.1. Network Configuration for PXE-based Discovery[2]


The "Provisioning Guide" has:

3.5. Creating Provisioning Templates[3]

Thank you


[1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/upgrading_and_updating_red_hat_satellite/upgrading_red_hat_satellite#upgrading_discovery_parent

[2] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/managing_hosts/chap-red_hat_satellite-managing_hosts-discovering_bare_metal_hosts_on_satellite#sect-Red_Hat_Satellite-Managing_Hosts-Discovering_Bare_metal_Hosts_on_Satellite-Network_Configuration_for_PXE-based_Discovery

[3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/provisioning_guide/configuring_provisioning_resources#Configuring_Provisioning_Resources-Creating_Provisioning_Templates

I believe this to be the correct section to provide the appropriate documentation:

2.5. Post-Upgrade Tasks



However, the verbiage below indicates 'optional' where this is NOT optional for anyone using PXE:

Some of the procedures in this section are optional.



For the record, I still think there needs to be other conversations as to whether [ 'network', 'disk' ] is the correct order for foreman setting the boot order in VMware.  I do not believe this is safe, or necessary at all.  This started out as a code bug and quickly turned to a documentation bug, but I believe the doc to simply be a band-aid for a larger problem.

After some discussions internally, I think both ['network','disk'] and ['disk','network'] have their own valid use cases.

Based on that, is there a way we can make this a configurable option?  I'm thinking this may need to be as granular as the host/compute profile level.

After some discussions internally, I think both ['network','disk'] and ['disk','network'] have their own valid use cases.

Based on that, is there a way we can make this a configurable option?  I'm thinking this may need to be as granular as the host/compute profile level.

If it is of any value here, I have worked in situations where [pxe, network] was desired, so that re-imaging was always easily managed via profiles without the tedious need to modify boot orders manually each time.

For the counter-point, I would offer the example of a scenario where you have a provisioning network that require alternative settings for the initial build, and need to have the network boot option removed once the initial build is completed.

I agree with Dustin, this behaviour should be configurable.

Hello

The template can be edited to change the boot order, so I should document how to do that.


I presume this is not specific to VMware VMs? 

Thank you

I think we can't change the vmware vm bootorder in template. This bug now mixes two things, documenting foreman_url to foreman_url('built') change fot Satellite 6.3 and RFE, so that we make vmware bootorder configurable. I suggest the later is opened as a separate BZ, as this was already used for the documentation change.

Dustin/Stephen,

Foreman (Satellite 6) PXE workflow was designed with net-hdd boot order from the very beginning. We believe this provides the best flexibility across all environments we support, it's not just PXE in VM we support much more.

We have the boot order currently hardcoded in our codebase, it's not just changing one line this will not work. We'd need to create brand new orchestration step and after a VM exits build mode, we'd need to change the boot order. There is a big challenge tho - most virtualizations do not allow you to change anything in BIOS when VM is running, so we'd need to shutdown the instance, do the change, turn it back. The question is timing - when to do this? We do not want to terminate firstboot because that's when configuration management takes over and does initial run.

You can file a RFE but I am pessimistic on picking this up anytime soon. I'd rather suggest digging on the other side (VMWare/RHEV) and finding out a way to change to boot order after first restart - maybe they provide some hooks or ways to do this. Most virtualization platforms do provide automatic removal of PXE boot after first successful reboot - libvirt, ovirt, RHEV and VMWare does this when you create an ad-hoc VM automatically. Maybe there is a way to configure the same behavior for VM from template.

Wrap-up: Boot order is hardcoded to net-hdd when doing PXE and hdd only when doing VM clone from template or image-based provisioning. Boot loop was a different (known) issue - upgrade to 6.3. Feel free to provide the above in our documentation.

(In reply to Marek Hulan from comment #18)
> I think we can't change the vmware vm bootorder in template. This bug now
> mixes two things, documenting foreman_url to foreman_url('built') change fot
> Satellite 6.3 and RFE, so that we make vmware bootorder configurable. I
> suggest the later is opened as a separate BZ, as this was already used for
> the documentation change.

OK, I will add section in Upgrade Guide[1] about the need to check custom provisioning templates for <%= foreman_url %> and change to <%= foreman_url('built') %>


as per comment 11 this change is mentioned in the release notes but it does not tell you to change custom templates.

The change was mentioned in this comment: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552093#c4
(release notes links to that bug)

[1] 2.5.6. Updating Templates
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/upgrading_and_updating_red_hat_satellite/upgrading_red_hat_satellite#updating_templates

Hello

These changes are now live on the Customer Portal

2.5.6.1. Finish Templates

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_satellite/6.3/html/upgrading_and_updating_red_hat_satellite/upgrading_red_hat_satellite#updating_templates

Thank you