mrwoberts

Yes, you'll need to 'add' those drivers to every index. However, I believe the way the indexing system works in a WIM file is by de-duplicating data so that the WIM doesn't bulk out by adding duplicates of identical files. Does that make sense? So, add the drivers to every index, but the size of your wim should only increase to just over the size of a single addition of those drivers.

Yes, install 3020369. In fact, install all the important updates, plus recommended. If you don't want the Get Windows 10 app, don't install KB3035583; you'll have to do some research regarding other Windows 10 telemetry bits and bobs... Incidentally, is this a home pc, or are you linked to the education sector in some way?

I think you misunderstood the comment from the other topic. If you are asking which order to integrate these two updates offline, as in, from a clean SP1 iso, which currently doesn't have any updates integrated, then it was pointed out to you that KB3020369 should be integrated first, but if you'd prefer to integrate them the other way around then go ahead and tell us your story later on. Otherwise, the time it took for you to post this topic could have been saved by just integrating them in the order you were told. KB3020369 KB2670838 ... other updates... KB3125574 Hope that helps.

Well, your commands look normal, and should produce identical files, so there must be some piece of the puzzle missing. Are the 1.wim file sizes ever the same? I mean, when you repeat the test again in your VM, is it identical to the first time you ran the test or are they fairly random file sizes after each run?

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that. Doh! now the Obsessive Compulsive side of me wants to check that out

What is the e: drive, is that a USB drive, connected to your VM?

Which VM software are you using? What is the e: drive, is that a USB drive, connected to your VM? I normally just change the type of subscription to Daily or Weekly, maybe just check that the subscription hasn't returned, or whether you've deleted all the ones you don't want...

@7point5 I see you've started another topic here I've answered your questions in the new topic, so shall we keep this topic related to the Convenience rolllup? Cheers

Not necessarily, it depends if DISM did exactly the same process each time. I don't usually pay that much attention to the size of the wim file, assuming the output to the DISM commands all went smoothly. Post your integration script/commands in full and let us see how you are doing things... As conversations like this are a bit like trying to help a patient when they're not telling you everything

I'm assuming this is an offline integration... So, in my understanding, order can often be important, especially in the case of this recent Windows 7 rollup (KB3125574). Often you can fire off a DISM /add-package command that simply points to a directory full of updates, but you'd need to be sure that any of those updates in that folder have their pre-requisites already integrated, in a separate DISM session. For example, in order to integrate the KB3125574 rollup you first need to integrate the updated servicing stack (KB3020369), and that would need to be issued with a separate DISM command. Like so... DISM /image:D:\offlineWIM /add-package /packagepath:D:\updates\KB3020369\Windows6.1-KB3020369-x64.cab DISM /image:D:\offlineWIM /add-package /packagepath:D:\updates\KB3125574\Windows6.1-KB3125574-x64.cab It would not work if you placed both of those updates in an update folder, 'updates' and then issued the following command DISM /image:D:\offlineWIM /add-package /packagepath:D:\updates Although it would try to integrated those updates, even in the correct order, 3020369 then 3125574, it will fail because technically KB3020369 has not yet been integrated - it is pending the rest of the package installs for that session (single DISM command). However, once you've integrated your particular updates, you can then issue this command to integrate the remaining, non-dependant updates... DISM /image:D:\offlineWIM /add-package /packagepath:D:\updates I'm sure someone can put that in a more concise way, but you just need to issue a separate DISM command line /add-package, for updates that are pre-requisites to others. If you want to know which ones you'll have to do some digging and look around at what is already written on the interweb thingy. Alternatively, do some testing yourself and see if any of your updates fail during integration, that may tell you that they are depending on another update...

Why don't you just run your integration commands (DISM) inside your VM and save the headache. I'm assuming you're wanting to create an offline-updated image/iso... ??

The historical problems with KB2670838 were mostly related to graphics card software, and the occasional bsod with ie10... I've never knowingly had problems with that update over the past couple of years. Also, it is a pre-requisite for IE11, so you'll need that if you intend to use IE. I don't know whether they are better, but I have previously come across reports of .msu files not working, whereas the extracted .cab file does. Try it. If I understand that statement correctly, you are using an external hard drive during the integration??? Is that where the .wim resides, or is that the mount folder? Either way, I would avoid including an external hard drive in this process. Try to do the whole job on the C drive if you have enough space. Maybe the permissions problem is related to the exHDD. Another possible test could be to run a Windows 7 (x64) PE disc, which includes the DISM command, and try out your integration in that. The files can all stay on your internal C drive, and be accessed as normal from the PE environment.

Well, I have to say that I was able to integrate it without the problem that you experienced, but this is perhaps indicative of the hit-miss aspect to this update. It would have been far simpler (in my naive understanding) for MS to have released SP2 as a media refresh. Still, I'm not going to loose any more sleep over this, particularly as I there are some very clever/helpful folks out there working on a best case solution to deploying a fully-updated image. To see if I can help you with this error, could you perhaps provide us with a clear explanation of your method of integrating and installing... as much detail as you can include. For example, what is your Host OS, what version of DISM are you using... I'm using Windows 10 Pro x64 DISM 10.0.10586.0 I had to *uninstall* my AV (Bit Defender) to be able to work with my 7x64 image. Bizarrely, just disabling the scanning engine didn't work. My DISM commands to slipstream the rollup are. :: Servicing stack DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3020369-x64.cab :: Platform Update DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2670838-x64.cab :: IE11 + Cumulative update DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2841134-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3154070-x64.cab Finally, the Rollup... DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3125574-v4-x64.cab But, I may well stick to applying the Servicing stack and rollup online, and instead, integrate other updates I'm missing offline.

Not one to give up, I did some more testing and I think I've come to the same conclusion, that the rollup is best applied post deployment. This isn't too bad I suppose, and I'm currently working on a plan of action to do all this with (zero-ish) touch. If I have anything of use, I'll reply back.

Glad you found the problem; you're definitely not going mad Keep us posted on the final solution - are you going to RMA the unit?

Sounds like it may well be the internal NIC cards of this unit, unless you spot a network misconfig somewhere along the line. If you do need to replace the unit, I'd be interested to see how Synology handle that, since I've never had to do it.

Understood. If that file takes 25 minutes, maybe test it with that file. Copy it over, using explorer, wait the time it takes, then go through the File Manager test, as above. There is also a ssh file copy you could try. As you say, this might be best left til Tuesday. SMB version best left on SMB2 unless your network is predominantly Windows 8/10 All the best.

Let's hope they get back to you a bit quicker than that - I wonder if they've taken into consideration the bank holiday weekend? Did you change any network related options such as, LargeMTU, and how does this box appear in DNS, everything look normal? Another test, in the DSM, open the internal File Manager app and copy a large file from one folder to another - do you get the same snail transfer speed? If not then it kind of seems to be network related...

It's definitely worth contacting Synology Support, and looking at their knowledge base, although if this is new I'd agree that you shouldn't have to do these things. I'm very happy with my Synology boxes so I wouldn't want you to give up on them. https://www.synology.com/en-global/company/contact_us 1. How about setting your box on a static IP, then remove it from the network and connect directly to your laptop (also on a static IP, matching subnet of RS815+). Try each NIC. Browse the shares and transfer files to see if that makes a difference, which would truly rule-out your switches/network... 2. Even though the firmware is up to date, is it worth resetting the config to factory defaults and if necessary, reconfigure the disks... Hope you find a solution

You're right, I think I overreacted following my testing of the rollup. I'm aiming to create an updated 'Gold' image for 7, quite probably the last one, and get it tested before the mass roll-out, ready for the new academic year. I'd already spent a few days solid getting updates integrated and tailoring the image when this rollup came along; somehow I convinced myself that I needed to start all over again and so inject this rollup instead. In all the excitement (I'm easily pleased), I forgot that this was not branded as a SP2, and I would always need to add updates, as others pointed out above. What I meant to say is that I may just stick with what I was working on before this rollup, although I'm still tempted to give it one last shot, along with the subsequent 70+ updates, since as you say, it isn't that much more work. Plus, there is the added bonus of a smaller wim, and a less disk space required post deployment. Have a good half term all.

Thanks for the info and pointers to MDT... I guess that I was expecting something more like SP2 with this update so my hopes were a little dashed after going through various tests... The old updates that need integrating are a little frustrating though, and I'm convinced that MS could have done something to address/include those, but hey, I've no real idea how much development time that would take, or indeed if they want to spend it on an OS that is in the process of being superseded. I have a fairly decent system already in place to deploy 7 but I was really hoping that this rollup would have made things simpler; yes, it some ways it does, but for what it's worth I'll stick with what I currently have for the coming academic year, which may well be the last for Windows 7 in the schools I support. It's a huge help to read about the testing and subsequent solutions that edu-geekers come up with, so thanks again.

Okay, I think I've officially given up with this convenient rollup. Whilst the integration was much quicker, and thank you @Arthur for providing a solution to do that, but I certainly didn't expect to see this post install... On inspection of the updates it wanted to install were some dating back to 2014. So I still have potentially another 70+ updates that need installing - that convenient rollup from MS suddenly seems less convenient than it could have been. I'm going back to the way I was working before this rollup. Am I missing anything @Arthur?

LOL. This rollup is getting less convenient by the day. But still, it seems a lot better than the 400+ updates and 2 hours it used to take me to get to this point. Thanks for working on this Arthur. Got myself one of those busy days today so I'll take another look tomorrow. To be continued ...

After I'd integrated I installed into a VM, which seemed to go smoothly. However, when I Checked for updates it took an age.... 100% CPU svchost... In fact, I shut it down as I couldn't wait any longer. I was reading around and some people are saying that with an offline integration of this rollup, SFC /SCANNOW detects damaged components post install. If you had a chance to run SFC on your fresh install, that would be interesting to compare. I'll be doing lots more testing by the sounds of it, but I need to have a working solution ready for the summer, so I might just go back to what I'd done before the rollup came along. Thanks for your help with this.

Scratch that last post, reading the posts (again, clearly) from you and psydii above, my new integrate command is thus... DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2775511-v2-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2732673-v4-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2728738-v3-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2878378-v2-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3020369-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3125574-v4-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2670838-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB2841134-x64.cab DISM /image:d:\offline /add-package /packagepath:d:\updates\Windows6.1-KB3154070-x64.cab