I'd like to test my software with some amount of packet loss. I see that I can do this with pfSense in the traffic shaping. But that's a lot of hassle to set up and create a couple of extra virtual switches and so on.
Can I do this directly in ESX to a particular network interface or across an entire virtual switch?
Just as a follow-up to my previous question: I have an ESXi server that I'm moving into a colocation facility that supplies me a single IP address. I think I'm going to go the route of setting up a VM that will act as my router for the guest VMs, and I think all of that's gravy. My concern now is accessing the VMWare Client to configure new virtual machines. This doesn't make sense in my head, but:
Can my ESXi Host be behind that VM router, as well?
Or will my setup require 2 IP addresses from my colocation facility? That is, one IP address to use to configure my VMs ( the ESXi host directly ) and another to hit the guest VMs?
Just to see where I'm coming from, in case my question isn't clear: my current office setup has the ESXi host at an IP address of something like 10.0.0.102. The VMs start at 10.0.0.103 and go up. And both are behind a physical router with an internal address of 10.0.0.1, and an external one of something like 98.x.x.x. Is it possible to make my a VM Guest that is dual-homed on the 98.x.x.x and the 10.0.0.x networks to route traffic for me AND access my VM Host at 10.0.0.102?
I'm moving a box that's running ESXi into a server colocation room at a local ISP. This box has a few virtual machines on it, and the local ISP just provides 1 IP address (by default).
Is there any problem in running a pfSense (or similar, suggestions?) VM as the gateway to my other VMs behind this pfsense NAT? My concern is that since the pfSense box will be routing traffic for multiple VMs (that will all be running on the same physical machine) we'll run into some performance issues.
The traffic should be relatively low, at least in the beginning. Something like a simple web-server and a Ventrilo server with < 50 users at any given time.
Right now I have two buildings across the street from one another that both have typical consumer aDSL connections (something like 12 Mbs down/1 Mbs up). When I need to access resources on the other network, I VPN into the other building and do my work. The problem is that when I'm transferring large files, it's a very slow connection. And sometimes I'm remotely working with both of those networks so simply walking between buildings with a hard drive is out of the question.
What are some best practices to solve this situation? I've considered running a fiber link between the buildings, but is that a viable option and what is there to consider when doing that (I imagine a permit from the city would be needed to dig up the street)? Wireless seems like the obvious choice, but is it reliable, and would I get a significant speed boost?
Thanks!
I'm not super keen on the fancy networking terminology to describe my situation, so please help me out with that as I describe my problem in the best terms I can.
Currently, we have a network living on the 10.0.0.0/24 subnet. We just purchased an embedded device that, apparently, has its IP flashed onto it by the manufacturer ( or at least that's how the tech who installed it described it ), and its IP address is 192.168.1.200.
While I'm fully confident there's a semi-nice way to change the IP on this embedded device so that it can live on the same network as our other computers, is there a way I can just get the router to route traffic to this device and achieve the same goal? Currently the network and device are literally on the other side of the planet from me, so performing as few steps possible to get this working would be great.
If this matters, I have a SW24 router from SYSWAN.
Thanks!
UPDATE: I should probably mention an additional constraint: I can't change the IP address of the router so that it lives on the 192.168.1.0/24 network. Or at least, I don't think I can, previously it has caused problems. The two modems both all ready have the IP address of 192.168.1.1, and the SW24 is Load Balancing our Internet between them. Previously when I've tried to give the router an address of 192.168.1.254, it seemed to cause problems with our Internet.
Clarification: With regard to how the router should handle the traffic: I want the 192.168.1.200 host to work as though it were just another device on the 10.0.0.0/24 network. That is, from my 10.0.0.100 device, I should be able to ping 192.168.1.200 successfully, and vice versa.
Update: Here's a picture of how the network is sort-of laid out right now. The two clouds are the two modems, the 10.0.0.1 is the SYSWAN router's private IP address. I'd like for both of the 10.0.0.100 and 10.0.0.101 devices (actually there are a few more on the network, as well, but this is for simplicity of the picture) to be able to communicate with the 192.168.1.200 device. It seems like this is a job for static routes, but that's where I get confused. What kind of static route do I need to add to my router?
I'm writing a simple program to back-up some files to a Linux box. The transaction will take place over SSH and each copy of the program will have its own account on the Linux box that it will connect to.
My concern is that it's likely a user of the software will figure out their account name and password (which will be randomly generated beforehand) and want to connect to the box and play around.
I would like to disable their ability to do anything on that box besides what I would authorize the back-up software to do. That is, they only need to create new files and read old ones (no updates or deletes). They shouldn't need the ability to execute bc or a who or anything of the sort.
I've thought about trying to chroot each user into their home directory, but I'm kinda fuzzy on how to do all that.
Any suggestions on how to achieve this desired functionality?
Thanks!
Some strange things are happening with my Ubuntu box today as a regular (non-root user):
sudo without typing my password (normally, I believe I always have to type my password to sudo?)cd ~, it tells me that I don't have permission to go to /root. user@host:/home/username instead of the more familiar user@host:~ that I'm used to./root.screen because it can't write a new profile in the /root directory.It's probably useful to know that cating /etc/passwd shows that my user's home is /home/user and not /root.
I did just do a big apt-get upgrade, is this normal behavior for the new versions of my software? rkhunter reports some suspicious files, but they appear to have been there for awhile and seem legitimate (they look to be files related to Request Tracker). I can post the rkhunter logs if that helps anyone and is prudent. And chkrootkit shows up with nothing. Also unhide doesn't seem to notice anything. The only thing that rkhunter seems to be concerned about is my versions of openssl, openssh, php, GnPG. But doing a
sudo apt-get update; sudo apt-get upgrade; sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Gives me no packages to upgrade.
Anyone have anything to suggest for how to fix this? Bonus points to anyone that can determine the cause of my problem.
UPDATE: As I said above, my /etc/passwd shows my home directory to be correct (/home/username), but when I echo $HOME it shows /root. Here's output:
user@hostname:/home/user$ getent passwd $USER
user:x:1000:1000:user,,,:/home/user:/bin/bash
user@hostname:/home/user$ echo $HOME
/root
UPDATE UPDATE: Thanks to suggestions here, I found that there was a .profile in /home/user that was exporting my HOME as /root. While I guess this is the work of some weird software I apt-get'd removing it seems to have fixed most of my issues.
Thanks everyone!
I have a Windows Server 2003 box installed on an ESXi server (with a bridged connection) connected to a Linksys RV042 router. The Server 2003 install is configured with the RRAS role. I think my policy is set correctly since I can connect to it directly across the LAN. My RV042 is forwarding TCP port 1723 to the Server 2003 box (and I've also tried putting the Server 2003 box on the DMZ). I don't see any options to forward GRE, but following these instructions about disabling the SPI, I had hope.
Nonetheless, I'm unable to connect to the VPN over the WAN. portqry tells me the box is listening on 1723, but I still get an error 800 when I try to connect myself.
Any tips on trying to troubleshoot this?
Thanks!
Update: Just also wanted to mention that under "VPN Passthrough" the "PPTP Pass through" et al are Enabled.
I have a need to regularly backup some files from a Windows box both locally (on a different drive) and to a remote location over the Internet. I'm thinking of using 7zip to create the incremental backups on the local machine, and then scripting WinSCP to send them to a remote box running an OpenSSH server that will (probably via a cron job) take care of dating the backups and storing them away in neat folders.
With the links provided above, I think I can glue this together, but my question is whether or not this is a "good" solution. Is there anything I'm overlooking with this method? Is there a better (simpler?) way for me to go about doing this (note: the project has 0 budget, so while I'm a huge fan of Backblaze, it's out this time)? Is there any undue security concerns I'm ignoring? I guess I'm looking for a "best-practices" kind of thing here.
Thanks!
I write a lot of little projects, and I'd like to use TeamCity for my build server.
Is there a way for me to reuse the build configurations across multiple projects so that I can have more than 20 projects managed by TeamCity's Professional edition?
Edit: If there's no way to do this with TeamCity, could someone suggest an alternative that would also work? I write projects in various languages and for various platforms, and would like for it to integrate with my Subversion repositories.
Thanks!
I'm trying to edit large (200KB or so) articles on my MediaWiki install, but doing so gives me this error:
Request Entity Too Large
The requested resource
/path/to/my/wiki/index.php
does not allow request data with POST requests, or the amount of data provided in the request exceeds the capacity limit.
According to the Apache docs, the LimitRequestBody is by default 0 (unlimited). I don't think I'm near the MediaWiki limit of 2048KB. I can't find where/if PHP is limiting me.
What gives?
Update: My Apache error logs say:
request body exceeds maximum size for SSL buffer
And right below that:
could not buffer message body to allow SSL renegotiation to proceed
It appears that a possible solution can be found here.
But it requires me to recompile mod_ssl. It appears towards the end of that bug report they were talking about adding in a directive for this, instead of recompiling. Anyone know if this happened? Also, do I just need to recompile mod_ssl for this fix? And if so, how do I use my compiled version instead of the stock Ubuntu one?