-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Packages uploaded through Jamf Sync sometimes do not install from a policy #16
Comments
I experienced the same issue yesterday. I'll open a Jamf Support case as well. |
I have some updates from this that I have been testing. First, I also have the issue where packages synced with Jamf Sync take a long time to show up as a choice in a policy. If I go to Settings > Packages, the package is there, but not available to choose in a policy. What I found out is that both of these issues are solved when I do the following:
After I do this, both the issue with packages installing from a policy and the issue with the package not showing up in a policy are solved. My guess is it has to do something with databases not syncing right away, and deleting the old package triggers this in some way. After I upload a package with Jamf Sync, I make it part of my workflow to follow the steps above so it shows up in a policy and installs correctly. |
I am seeing the same thing, except it doesn't seem to be random machines not getting the packages but rather random intervals of the policy running. I uploaded package to our 2 FSDP using jamf sync, created an ongoing policy with a custom trigger and ran it on the same machine 15 or 16 times. It pulled the package 4 times and then the other dozen times it successfully completed the policy without actually installing a package. |
@kbreed27 Do you have a clustered environment? it could be a replication problem between tomcat if so. |
I do! We have our secondary nodes set to have the GUI disabled and the primary that hosts GUI is not behind the load balanced. I enabled the GUI on all of the secondary nodes found that most of them were showing an "unknown" package, despite the package being in the Settings > packages menu. Once I went into the package in the global settings, clicked on Edit, made no changes, and saved the policy on that one node started seeing the package. The others still showing an unknown package did not change. We're still on JP 11.5.1 and Jamf admin has no issues replicating the packages to all of the children nodes directly from the Jamf Admin app. |
@kbreed27 we're in the same boat. Running 11.5.1 as well. Support seems to have reproduced the issue in their test environment but they didn't say which version they were running. Jamf Admin works fine for us. We are scheduled to update to 11.7.1 this weekend but that's likely to be canceled if this isn't fixed. |
We observe the same problem, I also opened a support case with Jamf about that. Jamf Admin is using different endpoints to manage packages. The issue seems to be sync related in clustered environment, not with Jamf Sync. If you haven't already, it's best to open a support case as well. Workarounds are:
|
Just opened a case for this: CS1213629 Version 11.7.1 |
Hello,
This issue is very strange, and since I am uploading packages through Jamf Sync, it seems related to Jamf Sync.
I have a new package I uploaded through Jamf Sync, and the package is on my policy with a custom trigger:
But on some computers, running the custom trigger does not install anything:
Running the command through terminal says it's running the policy, and then submits the log to Jamf and doesn't reach out to our distribution point, or the JCDP, which I have as a fallback.
Last week when this happened, I opened Jamf Admin and the package worked fine after that. Now that we are on Jamf 11.6.1, Jamf Admin does not connect anymore.
This seems more like some kind of database issue, but wanted to bring it to your attention. The Jamf case number is CS1186671, which I have some logs uploaded that support requested.
Please let me know if you need anything else from me.
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: