I am trying to setup a development environment based on vagrant provisioned with Chef. I created an environment with Apache (used Chef) and can access web server from my host machine with port forwarding.
I'd like to make my vagrant box to contain several virtual hosts and with shared folders I will define different projects pointing out same box and related virtual host.
What I need to learn is whether there is a Chef-way to create virtual hosts for apache (it maybe other web servers, eg. nginx) under vagrant box or not. Or after vagrant+chef setup should I configure virtual hosts manually with connecting box via ssh? If both options are available, which one is more preferable to apply?
The answer is YES, you can do this using Chef. The choices you have to is to use standard community recipe of Apache2 by Opscode or part of it. You might also want to check discussion here and here
Good practice would be of course to use a recipe/write your own to create virtual hosts and enable them. One of things you want to achieve with Chef is to automate this so that you won't have to do it manually. The complexity of your scenario might demand you to do it differently than what has been tried in links below. You might have to DNS configurations in place of course if you are planning to deploy this places other than your local machine.
Related
At the moment we have multiple raspberry pies placed at different locations on different networks.
Our current solution to be able to reach them if something goes wrong is auto-ssh with jump host.
Recently I stumbled on Wireguard which could be another more slim way to solve the calling home problem.
The problem is that we would like the setup phase to be more dynamic, we don't want to do special configuration per node we have out there, we just want them to call home with a key and then be apart of the network.
Two questions:
Is Wireguard for us or are there other problems that I can't foresee here.
Is there a way to set it up dynamically with one key and let the clients get random ips?
wireguard always needs a unique keypair / host. So not what you are looking for.
If you just want a phone home option with ip connectivity I would suggest an openvpn server and client. If you use a username/password config (not using certificates), you can reuse the config on multiple clients. Openvpn will act as an dhcp server.
an howto:
https://openvpn.net/community-resources/how-to/
search for:
client-cert-not-required
The option that Maxim Sagaydachny is also valid for command access, an alternative to salt could be puppet with mco/bolt.
On any option you choose, be sure that the daemon restarts when it crashes, reboots, fails...
for systemd services this would be an override with:
[service]
restart=always
I have an Apache2 server running in Debian 9.
I am using it to host a custom MediaWiki Wiki.
To navigate to the Wiki I use something of this form "10.200.200.20/mediawiki" where the Apache2 server is running on 10.200.200.20.
This works fine however sometimes the IP Address (10.200.200.20) will change and then everyone on the local network navigating to the Wiki will have to be notified and use the new IP Address which is a hassle.
I wish to change it to something consistent, for example "OurWikiServer/mediawiki" it doesn't really matter that much as long as it can always be found at the same place.
I know this is possible as the MediaWiki installation was previously maintained by someone else who used XAMPP in Windows 7 and it was configured to be found at "stringHere/mediawiki" on the local network.
I have tried changing it in /etc/hosts and can get it changing on individual machines as expected, however have no idea how to get it working network wide.
The best way to do this is to define the IP of this station static. This can be done via reservation in DHCP server or assign IP outside of the DHCP IPs. Also consider adding small DNS server to provide hostname instead of IP
I'm looking to set up a few virtual hosts for different domains for a few friends, and want to know if one virtual host can access files from another host, whether it be via PHP or any other option or if it's totally isolated, so any scripts they can run would only affect their area.
An Apache "virtual host" is just a mapping of a hostname (or ip address or port) to a particular set of configuration directives. There is no "containment" or isolation implied by this; everything is still running on the same host.
If you want to actually isolate applications, consider investigating container technology like Docker (or a virtual machine solution), with a front-end proxy directing traffic as necessary to the appropriate backend.
I've created literally dozens and dozens of web servers in my day, but this is my first attempt with Windows Azure and I'm running into some problems. I just started migrating from AWS recently.
First of all, I'm running Ubuntu 13.04. Firewall disabled (for debugging), Apache2 installed correctly (using apt). SSH works fine as do many other services with both the DNS hostname and public IP. Virtual host is set up correctly and validated. However, I cannot access the HTTP website either through the Azure provided subdomain or the virtual IP. It just times out.
This is also my first time using Ubuntu 13.04 as well. So, through the powers of deduction, I'm assuming there is something I'm missing either with this new version of Ubuntu or some quirk in Azure. Does anyone have any suggestions?
SOLUTION
These steps to create "endpoint" works fine for all VPS:
open "virtual machine > endpoint > add endpoint"
choose "next"
set "name:http, protocol:tcp, public port:80, private port:80"
choose "complete"
and then must wait for activation and then for some time.
If you are using Azure Resource Groups along with your VMs (which is available on the new portal) you cannot use endpoints because it's not available there, so you should follow the following to open up the HTTP port or ANY other port:
1- Select the VM that you want to manage ports on.
2- In settings, click on Network Interfaces and select your network.
3- Go to Network Security Group and select your group.
4- Add Inbound or Outbound security rules depending on what you need.
I have a half-dozen domains (with associated domain names), hosted locally on Windows/Apache and accessible to the wider internet. At the moment, the name servers are provided by my domain name register at extra cost. I would like to host a domain name service (on the same machine as is hosting the websites).
I have tried BIND without success, I was unable to configure it correctly. I was confused about zones and the syntax of configuration, as well as how to test if it is configured correctly!
Most guides seem directed at users who wish to replicate DNS entries for local caching, whereas I simply want to host a name server (locally) which directs users to my local machine, when they request any of the half-dozen websites I host.
Is there a simple application to host limited Domain Name Service this on Windows (Vista Business), or an obvious tutorial that I haven't found yet? Or was I on the right track with BIND and missing something?
Bind is probably the best choice. The guides you're referring to are talking about configuring a caching resolver. What you want is an authoritative name server. Bind can be a pain to configure because there are so many options, but it's probably worth persevering.
Depends what your budget is..
The DNS Server on Windows 2003 Server is pretty good and easy to configure.
There's a bunch of alternatives list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_server_software
Simple DNS Plus could maybe do the trick for your case, but I haven't tried it.
Another option is maybe to use Bind and try to find a GUI for it, there's a few existing, usually web based, like webmin and such...