6 Replies Latest reply on Jun 28, 2017 2:23 AM by CKuhl

    LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites

    CKuhl Apprentice

      Hi dear All,


      I got a question about the SWD and the Patch management. We configured the software packages and the patchmangement to use http paths.

      Now we use a NAS as preferred Server for our Subsidiaries. After some time now we came to the conclusion that it isn´t working properly.

      It seems that the clients are still using our core server or clients in the same subnet to source the patches and packages, but won´t use the preferred server.

      Now it came to my mind, that we configured http, but on the NAS there is no http site that can provide the files.

      Unfortunately I wasn´t able to find a concrete answer on this issue. Neither the Web nor the Manual gives indication what I have to use in order for it to work properly.


      Do you may have some insight if HTTP sites on the NAS are required for it to work at all? Or if I can simply change the paths?


      Hopefully somebody got experience with this!


      In the meantime I will try to find out for my self and will let you know if I find something out.

      If a similar document which answers this question already exists I am sorry. I wasn´t able to find any.


      Best Regards



        • 1. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
          phoffmann SupportEmployee

          So - a couple of questions here as well as a few points that may help:

          • How did you find out / decide that clients were bypassing the local preferred server & went back to the Core?
          • Have you checked that the clients actually have the preferred server (PS) properly configured & can access it? (If they can't see it, they'll skip it and go "back to source").


          Not questioning the observations per se - just helps understanding how you came to your conclusions. It could be a case of mistaken log-reading potentially, or lack of information. Just want to make sure it's not a simple "oh - what ACTUALLY happens..." type stuff .


          To help along with a few things:

          • For software downloads, we have an automatic HTTP <=> UNC switch over.


          So if you have a "http://Myserver/MyShare/MyFile.exe" and that fails, we also try to hit up "\\MyServer\MyShare\MyFile.exe" -- and vice versa (so if UNC fails, we try to conver to HTTP).



          • The Preferred server is "just a name substitution" ... so if the package source says "download -- http://MyPackageHome/MyShare/MyFile.exe"  that will get auto-substituted to "http://MyPreferredServer/MyShare/MyFile.exe" -- but if things fail with the preferred server, we fail over and go to the source. That could be due to authentication, DNS problems or various other such things -- point is, the question is whether we're "legitimitely" failing over to the Core or not .


          This is where debug-enabled logs will be helping you. As an aside, THIS will help you too --

          1. How to quickly troubleshoot a Software Distribution job
          2. How to troubleshoot Software Distribution Tasks - Core Side
          3. How to troubleshoot Download Failures in Software Distribution (Advanced)


          A NAS is "just" a share as far as client devices are concerned really at the end of the day -- so it may be worth checking into with what's going on / happening with the preferred server side of things specifically first :).


          And just to do the I's and cross the T-s -- I'm assuming you're familiar with these basics:

          1. How to set up an HTTP share for a Preferred Package Share
          2. How to configure a Preferred Package Server


          <merely for completeness sake, in case PPS'es are something you've only started dabbling with >


          Hope this helps.

          • 2. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
            CKuhl Apprentice

            Hi phoffmann,


            thank you for the fast reply. A part of the material I had already gone through. But I will go in deeper and see If I can find out more.


            One thing I found is that when I changed the "Web Url or UNC path where clients access patches" from HTTP to UNC, the security scan the preferred server as source location, instead of the core server. This wasn´t the case before! It always displayed the core server!.


            Now I will use the docu you provided and investigate SWD.


            Thank you very much!


            Best Regards



            • 3. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
              CKuhl Apprentice

              I just changed the Path of a software package from an url to an unc. And now this also this shows also the correct path. I am guessing that this isn´t the intended behavior?

              Currently we got an Beta Patch installed for the Version 9.6 SP2 and don´t want to upgrade to due a high a amount of installation that are currently running.


              • 4. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
                phoffmann SupportEmployee

                Oh wow - 9.6 SP2 ... yeah, OK - that's quite old. Bear in mind that SP3 has been out for a year (give or take) and we're working on SP4 now ... could be that there's a defect in there that's been fixed since.


                As a side note, the "beta patch" is likely just a regular service update -- the "beta" is a legal term in effect, as we've not been able to perform the 6-12 (and more) weeks of regression testing that service packs go through on the service updates (which may be as frequent as monthly).


                You could certainly check with support and find out where you're currently on and whether there's any newer service updates for 9.6 SP2 (and then, what they fix, in case there's anything around this sort of thing).


                I've not seen your listed behaviour myself ... but with a codebase that's 1+ year old (at its best), the first recommendation would be to up-lift to a currently supported level for sure.


                Quite interesting though ... really never seen this sort of thing happen with HTTP to UNC failover.


                Hmm - well - if UNC is working for you, do you want to use UNC based soft dist for now, until you've got a bit more breathing room & then look at whether you can set aside time / effort / resources needed to either do a "small" uplift in terms of service pack update, or whether you want to up-lift to either LANDesk Management Suite 2016 or Ivanti Endpoint Manager 2017 (and potentially up-lift your Core to Server 2016 for instance) ?

                • 5. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
                  MarXtar ITSMMVPGroup

                  Out of interest, did you miss changing a / to a \ in the path?


                  In that log extract you have '3.0 M110/\files.7z.....



                  Mark McGinn

                  MarXtar Ltd/MarXtar Corporation


                  Ivanti One Development Partner


                  Try MarXtar State Management for Ivanti to Better Understand and Manage your Assets

                  • 6. Re: LDMS 9.6 SWD and Patches from NAS without HTTP Sites
                    CKuhl Apprentice

                    MarXtar: Yes you are correct. There was a "\" in the path and it was transferred to the file path. This isn´t an LANDesk error.


                    phoffmann: Yeah I thought that this isn´t a normal behavior. We a planning to Upgrade to LDMS 2016... May take some time though.