Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
31
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Server sizing for AD replacement
« on: April 23, 2014, 08:31:28 pm »
That sounds good. Yeah, I don't know how to migrate as smoothly as the methods you mentioned.
When I migrated, the windows AD (the company had been using) was inoperable, and they only had one, and there were no keys or installation disks to be found, and it was night time. I migrated under extreme pressure, having no experience with Zentyal. I worked for 24 hours straight.
The Zentyal server was pretty easy to set up, but since it was a different domain than what all the servers and workstations expected, after joining each workstation, windows created a new local windows user profile when the user logged on (with an empty desktop and no documents, etc. Windows 7 has a profile migration tool in it. I used that to move all their documents and settings to the new local profile for each machine. I was doing them all at one, going from computer to computer. Some employees had 80GB of files in their documents folder! It was very time consuming and I worked constantly for 24 hours.
If you have a functional AD server already running. I wonder if this method would work:
1) install zentyal on the server you intend to be the primary domain controller.
2) set it up as an "additional domain controller" and let all the AD stuff completely propagate to the Zentyal server.
3) Turn off the Windows AD server
4) Promote the "additional domain controller" to a primary. This takes a couple of command to do (from what I've read before somewhere). You have to make sure the Zentyal server has all the FSMO roles. Read how others have done that.
5) See if the servers and workstation can login, using this zentyal server for authentication.
6) If it doesn't work, simply turn the windows server back on and try a different method.
This is just a concept that I have not tested at all. If it works, though, it seems easier than joining each workstation. I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you are on the right track with the migration scripts you speak of. I just thought I'd mention this concept for you research further.
I'm eager to know how you'll ultimately migrate; you'll probably have some advice of you own after that
As for Window 2008, I see no problems there. I've even joined windows 2012 servers to a Zentyal domain. However, if the active directory your coming from is too complex or unorthodox, it might not migrate (I suspect). I'm not sure, because I created a brand new domain when I did it. I didn't feel like I had time to work smart; I just had to make it happen. So I chose a hard route that seemed more certain, after joining the first workstation.
When I migrated, the windows AD (the company had been using) was inoperable, and they only had one, and there were no keys or installation disks to be found, and it was night time. I migrated under extreme pressure, having no experience with Zentyal. I worked for 24 hours straight.
The Zentyal server was pretty easy to set up, but since it was a different domain than what all the servers and workstations expected, after joining each workstation, windows created a new local windows user profile when the user logged on (with an empty desktop and no documents, etc. Windows 7 has a profile migration tool in it. I used that to move all their documents and settings to the new local profile for each machine. I was doing them all at one, going from computer to computer. Some employees had 80GB of files in their documents folder! It was very time consuming and I worked constantly for 24 hours.
If you have a functional AD server already running. I wonder if this method would work:
1) install zentyal on the server you intend to be the primary domain controller.
2) set it up as an "additional domain controller" and let all the AD stuff completely propagate to the Zentyal server.
3) Turn off the Windows AD server
4) Promote the "additional domain controller" to a primary. This takes a couple of command to do (from what I've read before somewhere). You have to make sure the Zentyal server has all the FSMO roles. Read how others have done that.
5) See if the servers and workstation can login, using this zentyal server for authentication.
6) If it doesn't work, simply turn the windows server back on and try a different method.
This is just a concept that I have not tested at all. If it works, though, it seems easier than joining each workstation. I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you are on the right track with the migration scripts you speak of. I just thought I'd mention this concept for you research further.
I'm eager to know how you'll ultimately migrate; you'll probably have some advice of you own after that
As for Window 2008, I see no problems there. I've even joined windows 2012 servers to a Zentyal domain. However, if the active directory your coming from is too complex or unorthodox, it might not migrate (I suspect). I'm not sure, because I created a brand new domain when I did it. I didn't feel like I had time to work smart; I just had to make it happen. So I chose a hard route that seemed more certain, after joining the first workstation.
32
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Server sizing for AD replacement
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:08:20 pm »
Yes, I like that setup.
As long as the windows server is joined to the zentyal-created "AD" domain controller, you'll be able to control permissions of files and folder by simply right-clicking as normal and setting both sharing and ntfs permissions. Any users you've added in the Zentyal web interface will be available for you to associate them with particular files and folders, just as you'd expect if a windows server was doing AD.
I'm actually using Zentyal for a file server too, but I like your set up better due to that issue I had upgrading from Zentual 3.0 to 3.2. Samba 4 was still unsettled at that time, so future upgrades may not break file sharing, but as they say: once bitten twice shy. So, I'd play it safe and use something else for a file server. In my experience, Zentyal is good at domain controllers, firewall, openVPN, DNS, DHCP, web proxy, traffic shaping.
My suggested set up requires 3 servers:
1) Gateway - For this I installed Zentyal onto a lenovo q-190. The computer is dedicated to Firewall, VPN, Web Proxy, Traffic Shaping, port-forwarding, blocking certain websites
2) Domain Controller 1 - I've got this in a virtual machine, so that I can perform a snapshot before performing an upgrade. This way I can restore back in the event of a failed upgrade. You don't want to lose your domain controller no matter what. If you do you'll spend a lot of time rebuilding it and joining workstation to a new domain. This server has 2GB of ram dedicated to it, and it does: AD, DNS, DHCP Pool 1 (192.168.0.10 - 192.168.0.100 for example).
3) Domain Controller 2 - Zentyal's web interface calls this an "additional domain controller". It syncs with the primary domain controller. You can add a user in either one of these domain controllers and go look in the other one and it will already be there. So, it works well. You want to have a 2nd one in case you have to take the primary down for some reason. You can set your dhcp service so that each workstation is informed that it has two choices for domain controllers. This way, if one goes down, users can still login to the windows workstations and servers; authentication still gets performed. This server does: AD2, DNS, and DHCP Pool 2 (192.168.0.101 - 192.168.0.190 for example). This second dhcp pool (on this server) ensures workstations will still get issued an IP in case the other server is down.
As long as the windows server is joined to the zentyal-created "AD" domain controller, you'll be able to control permissions of files and folder by simply right-clicking as normal and setting both sharing and ntfs permissions. Any users you've added in the Zentyal web interface will be available for you to associate them with particular files and folders, just as you'd expect if a windows server was doing AD.
I'm actually using Zentyal for a file server too, but I like your set up better due to that issue I had upgrading from Zentual 3.0 to 3.2. Samba 4 was still unsettled at that time, so future upgrades may not break file sharing, but as they say: once bitten twice shy. So, I'd play it safe and use something else for a file server. In my experience, Zentyal is good at domain controllers, firewall, openVPN, DNS, DHCP, web proxy, traffic shaping.
My suggested set up requires 3 servers:
1) Gateway - For this I installed Zentyal onto a lenovo q-190. The computer is dedicated to Firewall, VPN, Web Proxy, Traffic Shaping, port-forwarding, blocking certain websites
2) Domain Controller 1 - I've got this in a virtual machine, so that I can perform a snapshot before performing an upgrade. This way I can restore back in the event of a failed upgrade. You don't want to lose your domain controller no matter what. If you do you'll spend a lot of time rebuilding it and joining workstation to a new domain. This server has 2GB of ram dedicated to it, and it does: AD, DNS, DHCP Pool 1 (192.168.0.10 - 192.168.0.100 for example).
3) Domain Controller 2 - Zentyal's web interface calls this an "additional domain controller". It syncs with the primary domain controller. You can add a user in either one of these domain controllers and go look in the other one and it will already be there. So, it works well. You want to have a 2nd one in case you have to take the primary down for some reason. You can set your dhcp service so that each workstation is informed that it has two choices for domain controllers. This way, if one goes down, users can still login to the windows workstations and servers; authentication still gets performed. This server does: AD2, DNS, and DHCP Pool 2 (192.168.0.101 - 192.168.0.190 for example). This second dhcp pool (on this server) ensures workstations will still get issued an IP in case the other server is down.
33
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Server sizing for AD replacement
« on: April 21, 2014, 10:46:13 pm »
Since no one else has said anything, I'll say something.
I'm not sure about 100 users, but 30 users work just fine with 2GB of RAM. If all your doing is active directory without roaming profiles, the only thing the server will be doing is authentication for the other servers and workstations that get logged into (later I remember DNS and DHCP is also being done, but still not that intensive). I don't think that's very RAM intensive at all.
I also have an additional domain controller in case the first one goes down.
Since AD is so important, I try to limit the AD servers to that task exclusively, but I actually have FTP and File Sharing also going on my primary domain controller. The backup "additional domain controller" is dedicated to AD alone.
I have another Zentyal server installed as a Gateway, doing firewall, proxy, VPN, traffic shaping, etc.
If I were to do it all over from scratch, I wouldn't use my AD for ftp or file sharing. I'd have my primary and backup AD doing AD exclusively. Well actually, I have it do AD, DNS, and dhcp (that's all). Zentyal has done a good job at AD for me. File sharing, though, has broken on upgrades for me, where it took a few hours to get it back going. If you do only AD, DNS, and dhcp and you're not using roaming profiles, 2GB of RAM seems like plenty to me. I suspect it would be plenty for 200 users, but I may be wrong.
Others may disagree, and they might persuade me to their view, but before then, this is what I think.
I'm not sure about 100 users, but 30 users work just fine with 2GB of RAM. If all your doing is active directory without roaming profiles, the only thing the server will be doing is authentication for the other servers and workstations that get logged into (later I remember DNS and DHCP is also being done, but still not that intensive). I don't think that's very RAM intensive at all.
I also have an additional domain controller in case the first one goes down.
Since AD is so important, I try to limit the AD servers to that task exclusively, but I actually have FTP and File Sharing also going on my primary domain controller. The backup "additional domain controller" is dedicated to AD alone.
I have another Zentyal server installed as a Gateway, doing firewall, proxy, VPN, traffic shaping, etc.
If I were to do it all over from scratch, I wouldn't use my AD for ftp or file sharing. I'd have my primary and backup AD doing AD exclusively. Well actually, I have it do AD, DNS, and dhcp (that's all). Zentyal has done a good job at AD for me. File sharing, though, has broken on upgrades for me, where it took a few hours to get it back going. If you do only AD, DNS, and dhcp and you're not using roaming profiles, 2GB of RAM seems like plenty to me. I suspect it would be plenty for 200 users, but I may be wrong.
Others may disagree, and they might persuade me to their view, but before then, this is what I think.
34
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Can't boot after upgrade to 3.4: error: file not found. grub rescue>
« on: April 21, 2014, 03:12:38 pm »
I'd like to thank both of you for the information and links you provided.
@ J.A. Calvo:
I've already restored the snapshot that I made before upgrading. So, I can't now provide the after-kernel.
Before upgrading:
After upgrading:
To be determined next attempt...
@ J.A. Calvo:
I've already restored the snapshot that I made before upgrading. So, I can't now provide the after-kernel.
Before upgrading:
Code: [Select]
dpkg -l | grep linux-image
ii linux-image-3.5.0-23-generic 3.5.0-23.35~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-30-generic 3.5.0-30.51~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-31-generic 3.5.0-31.52~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-32-generic 3.5.0-32.53~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-34-generic 3.5.0-34.55~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-36-generic 3.5.0-36.57~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-37-generic 3.5.0-37.58~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-39-generic 3.5.0-39.60~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-40-generic 3.5.0-40.62~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-41-generic 3.5.0-41.64~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-42-generic 3.5.0-42.65~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-43-generic 3.5.0-43.66~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-44-generic 3.5.0-44.67~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-45-generic 3.5.0-45.68~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-46-generic 3.5.0-46.70~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-47-generic 3.5.0-47.71~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-3.5.0-48-generic 3.5.0-48.72~precise1 Linux kernel image for version 3.5.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP
ii linux-image-generic-lts-quantal 3.5.0.48.54 Generic Linux kernel image
After upgrading:
To be determined next attempt...
35
Installation and Upgrades / Re: apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 21, 2014, 01:08:40 pm »I will release zentyal-core 3.3.10 asap with the extra safety step of removing the launchpad repo, but I'm really curious to know what failed in the process.Thank you, much appreciated.
You say that "When programming for an upgrade, you can't just assume things based on the latest editions you see of each version's code base.", but we've always stated that to upgrade to a newer version first you need to be properly upgraded to the previous one . . .
I upgrade to 3.2 the first day the button showed up in the web interface. I was probably among the first to discover a workaround for the file server not working. Do you always enumerate the version (after the decimal) for every single change to the update script? Could I have possibly upgraded before the code to remove the launchpad PPA was included? If someone upgrades before your upgrade script is truly finalized, the next upgrade script might have to do what their pre-finalized script didn't get done. This is what I meant; it seems you have to consider more than just your finalized code and think about those who might have upgraded before final modifications were achieved. I understand how difficult it must be to consider so many possibilities; I'm just elaborating on what I meant.
- Is it possible that you upgraded directly from 3.0 to 3.3? (I suppose it's not, but just in case...)
No, I don't remember 3.1, but I certainly remember upgrading to 3.2 (tough growing pains on that version, btw).
- Did you upgrade from 3.2 to 3.3 using the button on the dashboard?
Yes, I've only upgraded exclusively with the dashboard buttons.
36
Installation and Upgrades / Can't boot after upgrade to 3.4: error: file not found. grub rescue>
« on: April 20, 2014, 04:28:24 am »
I upgraded my primary domain controller from to 3.4 from 3.3.9. It may be helpful to know that this server's original install was with Zentyal 3.0 and it had upgraded successfully all the way to 3.3.9, but cannot successfully reboot after upgrading to 3.4.
The upgrade seemed successful at first; I even logged into the 3.4 Web Interface, but after rebooting the server for the first time it would not boot up.
This is as far as it get while trying to boot:
The upgrade seemed successful at first; I even logged into the 3.4 Web Interface, but after rebooting the server for the first time it would not boot up.
This is as far as it get while trying to boot:
Code: [Select]
error: file not found.
grub rescue>
37
Installation and Upgrades / Re: apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:49:29 am »Anyway if there are more users affected by this we can just add some code in the upgrade script to look for launchpad references and delete them. That's easy.
I highly suggest you proceed with these improvements. Upgrade scripts should indeed be this thorough.
I would even suggest adding this issue to a check-list that always gets reviewed before each future upgrade script is written. Every prior issue with an upgrade script should be an item on this check-list. If such a check-list is properly reviewed before each upgrade script is written, Zentyal can increase the likelihood that the same oversights are not repeated in future upgrades.
My main domain controller is on a virtual machine. I just created a snapshot to see if it could successfully upgrade to 3.4. Very early in the process I saw download errors complaining about these exact same missing PPAs. I cannot upgrade any of the machines on my LAN until this upgrade script is either fixed or I'm given proper instructions for preparing these machines for the upgrade.
This particular machine began as a clean 3.0 installation and it has been upgraded multiple times up to 3.3.9. Given that I have never (ever) set a PPA in Zentyal, these incorrect PPAs were either set by an official installation disk or by one of the upgrade scripts in the past, created by a Zentyal developer.
However, what I don't understand, is how could a prior upgrade have set a PPA to an address that contain the sub-string "3.4" in it? I suspect some portion of the 3.4 upgrade script is just replacing the sub-string 3.3 with 3.4 without looking at the entire url.
When programming for an upgrade, you can't just assume things based on the latest editions you see of each version's code base. The current code base has been modified/repaired and may be different from when an early adopter may have installed/upgraded.
Update: This domain controller did not successfully upgrade to 3.4. It seem to get past the PPA issue we've been discussing; it was even running fine after the upgrade. However, after the first reboot it came to a grub prompt and couldn't proceed in booting up:
Code: [Select]
error: file not found.
grub rescue>I've posted this issue in another post:
https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,21575.new.html
38
Installation and Upgrades / Re: apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 19, 2014, 01:32:26 am »There shouldn't be any reference to launchpad at all. The repo official for 3.3 has always been:
deb http://archive.zentyal.org/zentyal 3.3 main extra
There has never been zentyal 3.3 packages in launchpad... 3.2 was/is the last Zentyal release to use launchpad.
I have no problem accepting what you say as true. However, the point is, I've never explicitly set any PPAs in Zentyal. These wrong PPAs were set by either an official installation disk or by a flawed upgrade script produced by the Zentyal developers.
The "Upgrade to 3.4" button in 3.3.9 should have checked to ensure these PPA were set correctly before attempting the upgrade. It is that button's script that set these incorrect PPAs. Not me.
39
Installation and Upgrades / Re: apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:41:22 pm »Some time ago Lonnie reported a successful config backup- and import on a newer version. Option?
I reported a sucessful migration to new hardware by restoring a configuration, but the source and destination machines were running the exact version of Zentyal (except one was 32bit and the new machine was 64bit).
The idea of using this technique for upgrading is untested by me. It seems I recall, during that process, Zentyal complained until I had all the exact same packages installed on the destination machine that were installed on the source machine. I don't remember if it also required the exact same version of each Zentyal component.
However, the idea of succeeding an upgrade in this manner sounds appealing.
40
Installation and Upgrades / Re: apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:27:16 pm »
Why would Zentyal showcase this "Upgrade to 3.4" button in 3.3.9, knowing that 3.4 folders are missing from the launchpad repositories?
The upgrade script, that this button initiates, seems to point Ubuntu to a Zentyal 3.4 ppa that doesn't even exist!
How sloppy can you get? Amazing audacity by the upgrade team.
The upgrade script, that this button initiates, seems to point Ubuntu to a Zentyal 3.4 ppa that doesn't even exist!
How sloppy can you get? Amazing audacity by the upgrade team.
41
Installation and Upgrades / Should Zentyal Have Skipped Ubuntu 13.10 Waiting for 14.04.1 ?
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:12:10 pm »
Steve Langasek Ubuntu Engineering Foundations team manager:
"Upgrades between LTS releases are not enabled by default until the first point release"
This means, that if you are on 12.04, it won't prompt you to upgrade until 14.04.1 is released. From a stability stand point, this makes a lot of sense to me.
Wouldn't it have been wiser to skip Ubuntu 13.10 altogether and instead focus on a distribution upgrade for when 14.04.1 is released?
I have several servers running Zentyal 3.3.9. I attempted to upgrade one of them to Zentyal 3.4 and the upgrade failed causing me to have to reinstall 3.3.9 onto that server.
I'm so disappointed that Zentyal showcased this "upgrade to 3.4" button before having thoroughly tested its ability to succeed. Additionally they even sent me an announcement email provoking me to go ahead and upgrade (without any warning of how risky that might be).
The only service this server was providing was an "Additional Domain Controller". At this point I'm stuck on 3.3.9, until I see proof that others are upgrading from 3.3.9 to 3.4 without issues.
"Upgrades between LTS releases are not enabled by default until the first point release"
This means, that if you are on 12.04, it won't prompt you to upgrade until 14.04.1 is released. From a stability stand point, this makes a lot of sense to me.
Wouldn't it have been wiser to skip Ubuntu 13.10 altogether and instead focus on a distribution upgrade for when 14.04.1 is released?
I have several servers running Zentyal 3.3.9. I attempted to upgrade one of them to Zentyal 3.4 and the upgrade failed causing me to have to reinstall 3.3.9 onto that server.
I'm so disappointed that Zentyal showcased this "upgrade to 3.4" button before having thoroughly tested its ability to succeed. Additionally they even sent me an announcement email provoking me to go ahead and upgrade (without any warning of how risky that might be).
The only service this server was providing was an "Additional Domain Controller". At this point I'm stuck on 3.3.9, until I see proof that others are upgrading from 3.3.9 to 3.4 without issues.
42
News and Announcements / Upgrade from Zentyal 3.3 to Zentyal 3.4 is NOT ready
« on: April 17, 2014, 01:11:09 am »
Upgrade from Zentyal 3.3 to Zentyal 3.4 is NOT ready:
https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,21537.0.html
https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,21537.0.html
43
Installation and Upgrades / Another Upgrade from 3.3.9 to 3.4 Failure
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:50:01 pm »
The upgrade seemed to be going fine, until this:
After this failure, I had to go manually set my DNS:
Otherwise, I was no longer to do sudo apt-get update (it couldn't resolve domain name's IPs):
Now, when I do sudo apt-get update, I get:
And yes, those urls are really down; try clicking them:
Any advice on how I might complete this corrupted upgrade from the command line?
Code: [Select]
Processing triggers for zentyal-core ...
* Restarting Zentyal module: haproxy
...fail!
* Restarting Zentyal module: webadmin
...fail!
* Restarting Zentyal module: logs
...done.
* Restarting Zentyal module: events
...done.
Processing triggers for ureadahead ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
bind9
zentyal-dns
zentyal-users
zentyal-ftp
zentyal-samba
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Forcing pending packages installation...
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
apache2-mpm-prefork apache2.2-bin cifs-utils cpp-4.6
libapache-singleton-perl libapache2-authcookie-perl libbind9-80
libchart-perl libdconf0 libdm0 libdns81 libfm-gtk1 libfm1 libgconf2-4
libgd-gd2-perl libgd2-xpm libgrail5 libisc83 libisccc80 libisccfg82
libjs-prototype libjs-scriptaculous libkpathsea5
liblaunchpad-integration-3.0-1 liblaunchpad-integration-common libllvm3.0
liblua5.1-0 liblwres80 libmath-round-perl libmenu-cache1 libmpc2
libobrender27 libobt0 libpoppler19 libtiff4 libtommath0
linux-headers-3.5.0-26 linux-headers-3.5.0-26-generic python-apport
python-gi python-gnupginterface python-keyring python-launchpadlib
python-lazr.restfulclient python-lazr.uri python-oauth python-pkg-resources
python-problem-report python-simplejson python-wadllib python-zope.interface
samba4
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
5 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up bind9 (2:9.9.3.dfsg.P2-4ubuntu1.1+zentyal12) ...
* Starting domain name service... bind9
...fail!
invoke-rc.d: initscript bind9, action "start" failed.
dpkg: error processing bind9 (--configure):
subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-dns:
zentyal-dns depends on bind9 (>= 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4ubuntu0.7+zentyal1); however:
Package bind9 is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-dns (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-users:
zentyal-users depends on zentyal-dns; however:
Package zentyal-dns is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-users (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-samba:
zentyal-samba depends on zentyal-users; however:
Package zentyal-users is not configured yet.
zentyal-samba depends on zentyal-dns; however:
Package zentyal-dns is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-samba (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-ftp:
zentyal-ftp depends on zentyal-users; however:
Package zentyal-users is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-ftp (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
bind9
zentyal-dns
zentyal-users
zentyal-samba
zentyal-ftp
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Setting up bind9 (2:9.9.3.dfsg.P2-4ubuntu1.1+zentyal12) ...
* Starting domain name service... bind9
...fail!
invoke-rc.d: initscript bind9, action "start" failed.
dpkg: error processing bind9 (--configure):
subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-dns:
zentyal-dns depends on bind9 (>= 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4ubuntu0.7+zentyal1); however:
Package bind9 is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-dns (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-samba:
zentyal-samba depends on zentyal-dns; however:
Package zentyal-dns is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-samba (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-users:
zentyal-users depends on zentyal-dns; however:
Package zentyal-dns is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-users (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of zentyal-ftp:
zentyal-ftp depends on zentyal-users; however:
Package zentyal-users is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing zentyal-ftp (--configure):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
bind9
zentyal-dns
zentyal-samba
zentyal-users
zentyal-ftp
Zentyal upgrade failed. Full log at /var/log/zentyal/upgrade.log.
After this failure, I had to go manually set my DNS:
Code: [Select]
sudo nano /etc/resolv.confOtherwise, I was no longer to do sudo apt-get update (it couldn't resolve domain name's IPs):
Now, when I do sudo apt-get update, I get:
Code: [Select]
. . .
Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com saucy-backports/multiverse Translation-en_US
Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com saucy-backports/restricted Translation-en_US
Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com saucy-backports/universe Translation-en_US
Fetched 1,184 kB in 9s (122 kB/s)
W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-amd64/Packages 404 Not Found
W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found
And yes, those urls are really down; try clicking them:
- http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-amd64/Packages
- http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-i386/Packages
Any advice on how I might complete this corrupted upgrade from the command line?
44
Installation and Upgrades / apt-get update can't get Zentyal ppa
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:39:16 pm »
W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-amd64/Packages 404 Not Found
W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found
Furthermore, you can see that 3.4 has been taken down:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/
This happened to me in the middle of an upgrade!
W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/3.4/ubuntu/dists/saucy/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found
Furthermore, you can see that 3.4 has been taken down:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/zentyal/
This happened to me in the middle of an upgrade!
45
Installation and Upgrades / Which Virtual Interface's IP Uses the Backup-Gateway During WAN Failover?
« on: April 08, 2014, 12:27:19 am »
I'm using Zentyal 3.3, but the only documentation I could find, regarding WAN Failover, was for 2.2:
http://doc.zentyal.org/2.2/en/routing.html#configuring-wan-failover-in-zentyal
So, I have two internet connections, and I want the second one to only be used when the primary one is down.
Each internet connection obviously has a different set of public IP addresses.
Zentyal allows you to specify one primary IP address for your Zentyal Server and then you can add multiple other IP addresses as "virtual interfaces".
If I have these two gateways:
55.55.55.54
33.33.33.32
and if my Server's IP is 55.55.55.55 and I have the following virtual interface IPs:
55.55.55.56
55.55.55.57
55.55.55.58
33.33.33.33
33.33.33.34
33.33.33.35
If the gateway 55.55.55.54 goes down, I realize that Zentyal will start using 33.33.33.32 as the gateway. However, that's just the gateway, what would the server's IP address be (from the perspective remote machines on the internet)?
For example, when the first gateway (55.55.55.54) is being used, if a user on a workstation goes and googles "show me my ip", they will find out that their IP (from a public perspective) is 55.55.55.55?
So how does Zentyal know which IP it should use when accessing gateway2 (33.33.33.32)? There are multiple to choose from in the virtual interfaces:
33.33.33.33
33.33.33.34
33.33.33.35
and I see no way to specify this in the configuration.
So, am I overlooking something? Or, is this automatically chosen by Zentyal? If so, what criteria is used to choose this?
http://doc.zentyal.org/2.2/en/routing.html#configuring-wan-failover-in-zentyal
So, I have two internet connections, and I want the second one to only be used when the primary one is down.
Each internet connection obviously has a different set of public IP addresses.
Zentyal allows you to specify one primary IP address for your Zentyal Server and then you can add multiple other IP addresses as "virtual interfaces".
If I have these two gateways:
55.55.55.54
33.33.33.32
and if my Server's IP is 55.55.55.55 and I have the following virtual interface IPs:
55.55.55.56
55.55.55.57
55.55.55.58
33.33.33.33
33.33.33.34
33.33.33.35
If the gateway 55.55.55.54 goes down, I realize that Zentyal will start using 33.33.33.32 as the gateway. However, that's just the gateway, what would the server's IP address be (from the perspective remote machines on the internet)?
For example, when the first gateway (55.55.55.54) is being used, if a user on a workstation goes and googles "show me my ip", they will find out that their IP (from a public perspective) is 55.55.55.55?
So how does Zentyal know which IP it should use when accessing gateway2 (33.33.33.32)? There are multiple to choose from in the virtual interfaces:
33.33.33.33
33.33.33.34
33.33.33.35
and I see no way to specify this in the configuration.
So, am I overlooking something? Or, is this automatically chosen by Zentyal? If so, what criteria is used to choose this?