Hello, I was wondering if this behavior is normal and if there is something I could do to prevent it...here is what happens :

Let's say a technician starts Imaging a computer...while he is in the process of Imaging, I update a package, then, when the TS reaches that package, it says Hash mismatch and fails. I guess that must be normal since the package has been updated but...

What do you guys do to update packages during business hours ? I mean, in a loaded day, technicians can image around 150-200 computers (8am to 5pm) so there is always a computer being imaged. Is there anything I could do so that I could update packages while some computers are being imaged without having the hash mismatch issue?

Thanks!

I use two different images and TS. one for testing and one for use by Tech. When I flip them over to the new image, I removed the advert for old TS. Any TS still in progress will work and new imaging will use the new TS.

Hmmm I have almost the same. I use 2 different TS : one for testing and one for the tech.

The testing is a copy of the one for the tech. But the thing is both use the same packages so let's say I do a modification in the Office package, it is used by the testing and the tech TS so if I update the DP, it will still fail since I am updating the package and not modifying something in the test TS itself...

But I never modify an existing package, I always create a new one for this reason.

Couldn't you just check the "Disconnect users from distribution points" box under the 'Package Update Setting" on the  Properties/Data Access tab?

And how exactly does that help you with the problem above?

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph 16 hours 22 minutes ago typo

I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated.

I'm just trying to understand your logic, maybe there was something that I was missing. It is always good to get a other view point.

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph Friday, May 29, 2015 3:15 PM typo

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph Friday, May 29, 2015 3:15 PM typo

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph Friday, May 29, 2015 3:15 PM typo

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph Friday, May 29, 2015 3:15 PM typo

Apparently it doesn't. I thought this would prevent the TS from trying to run that package while it was being updated. My apologies. But, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I'll will do my do dilligance in the future. I'll delete my input.

• Edited by tremmurph Friday, May 29, 2015 3:15 PM typo