Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Note: First and foremost, I'm about to explain a very "rigged" version of our imaging practices. I have a separate question up regarding imaging best practices.

Problem: As of right now, our department is using .wim files to deploy images onto all new machines. These are setup in a virtual machine, then booted to a WinPE iso from within the VM to capture the image using ImageX with the /check and /verify options. Both switches are used when both capturing and applying the image, which has been 9-11 GB in size up to now. Deployment as of right now is done via simple WinPE boot usb and external HDD containing the .wim itself, copied & verified as identical via MD5 & SHA checksums.

This gets data integrity a good ways, but we still run "sfc /scannow" immediately when we hit the desktop after a computer has been imaged and booted just as an extra step to verifying that the deployment was solid. This is as far as I know how to go. We're also looking to change the entire capture & deployment part to a network resource soon for obvious reasons, but I'm not sure if that's better or worse with regard to data integrity.

Summary: In a nutshell, I'm looking for any other methods either simple or automated to implement or scans to run that further ensure the integrity of the OS and our custom configurations by the time we deem it ready to be sent out to the field. If there's a built-in one I'm missing for example, I'd be happy to learn of it!

Extra: This is a concern for us so we don't have machines in the field goofing up in various small and seemingly unrelated ways. Our client-to-help-desk ratio is around 250:1, so keeping deployment problems to a minimum is a must. Of course, there's also the issue of discerning whether there was an issue with deployment or a user somehow managing to wreak havoc on their machine, the computer's physical condition (a lot of our field locations can be quite dusty), etc.

I've been the one heading up anything imaging, and it started out of necessity, so I've had to start implementing the practice without fully learning what all my options, risks, etc. are. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


migration rejected from superuser.com Apr 28 at 6:59

This question came from our site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.

closed as unclear what you're asking by mdpc, Ward, MichelZ, Jacob, Falcon Momot Apr 28 at 6:59

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

You've provided a lot of background info, and that's good. But I'm not really sure what you're asking. –  Colyn1337 Apr 26 at 21:13
I'm looking for either any other either simple or automated methods that further ensure the integrity of the OS and our custom configurations by the time we deem it ready to be sent out to the field. Question edited. –  PCI-J Apr 26 at 23:34
What exactly do you mean by "integrity"? What part of your deployment don't you trust? –  MichelZ Apr 27 at 6:44
It's more that I want to be as certain as possible that the machines we send out are perfectly imaged and setup, byte-for-byte, despite such large transfers happening multiple times (11 GB captured from a VM, then copied to an external HDD via usb, then applied via usb to another computer's internal HDD). There's no one specific thing I'm looking to fix, just any added layer of data verification. I would go further in my explanation, but I since improvements could potentially be made in any part of the process, I'm not sure how to go further.Thanks for keeping up despite the lack of clarity! –  PCI-J Apr 27 at 15:09