Thanks Paul! I wasn't intending to be rude, nor would I expect someone to read everyone of my emails. But it was rude for others to accuse me of incorrectly assuming things without first searching my previous mails to see if I had made the assumption or not. I felt I should point out that I have already provided information to the contrary. In the main most replies haven't made ill-informed assumptions and have been very helpful. My questions didn't beg 'hours of lessons', and were rather direct, and have evolved as I have tried the suggestions of those who have replied. If I were to follow your advice: 'It's far better to re-ask a question properly once you know what you're asking', then I doubt anyone would ask questions. I also tried to provide enough information in my first post so anyone could correct my assumptions and questions. And I did so under rather logical headings - trying to make it easy to read and see that I wasn't making to many assumptions. I provided server info, jails info, process info, my config, etc. it wasn't perfect information - but it was a better start than many other mails I have read here. But you can blame me, the pound noob, or the inefficiencies of mailing lists/online communications. There appear to be a lot of mails that get lost/unanswered in this this mailing list, and the mailers ask more erudite questions than I have. Perhaps the knowledge level for entry has been set too high on this mailing list? A community wiki/google group combination may be far more efficient, accessible, and friendlier.
This aside, I have aimed to learn a lot here and contribute back in the future! Thank you for taking the time to read my initial mail and take the time to reply. Back to being productive then! >and you should see something like this: > > % ls -l /var/run/pound* > srwx------ 1 root wheel 0 Sep 29 05:52 /var/run/pound > -rw------- 1 root wheel 5 Sep 29 05:52 /var/run/pound.pid After forcing pound to start, I do see this exactly (with a different time of course). >I'll point out that I have never run Pound INSIDE a jail, because I >generally require a reverse proxy to sit between the Internet and a >private network. At this time, release versions of FreeBSD allow only a >single IP address per jail. This means that if your Pound jail has a >private jail IP (192.168.x.x), the outside world won't reach it. I >don't know what your network looks like; I just want to make sure you're >aware of this. If not, you may need to rearchitect things. Thanks, I am aware of the IP limitations of jails, which is why I am using them. They have worked fine to date with a firewall and NAT/port-forwarding, so there is no need to rearchitect at this time. As I have previously noted, I have not messed up anything other than pound, so the jails are not an issue. >> As I've written before, I can directly view the web page at backend >> 192.168.0.160:8080. >> But I still telnetted to this as per your advice, added GET /, and yes I >> got HTML back, which I recognise as being part of the web app. > >So your web server is running. That's good. Yes thanks, I have noted many times here that Apache is running fine, and the only issue appears to be Pound. >> I performed sockstat (FreeBSD equiv of netstat) and confirmed that Pound >is >> running and listening to 192.168.0.161:80 - as it should be. > >Sockstat is not an equivalent of netstat. It provides different >information. In this case, it provides more useful information, so it's >the right tool to use. Users of other operating systems (Linux, >Solaris, etc) can get some of the information that sockstat provides >with "netstat -an | grep -w LISTEN" My bad, I lumped them together for Linux users re finding sockets in FreeBSD. >> If you had read a previous mail from me, you would know that I have >already > >Don't be rude. As I said, your initial query was full of holes. I >wouldn't have read past the first two blatantly erroneous assumptions, >and certainly would not have answered it. Anyone reading my third line would see that I note my assumptions were wrong: 'SSH it seems is fine regardless of proxy, and now I can't find my note of the command I used to disable Pound, so that I may reverse this.' It would be rude to dismiss an email because of the first two assumptions, particularly when they are knocked over in the next line. My only assumption was that pound was preventing SSH from working. And I noted that after I realised it wasn't, I was seeking to re-enable Pound. I included the information re SSH to allow someone to correct me that Pound may have caused a problem with SSH - if this were possible. I divided my mail into logical topcial headers, and tried more than most to make it a quick easy read. I can't account for readers temperaments nor their attentions spans. I provided all the information I could to avoid repeating myself and to prevent wasting others time asking me obvious questions. >> I suspect I just need to be shown how to run the poundctl command to >> RE-ENABLE the service. > >You can always re-enable pound by restarting the daemon: > > % sudo /usr/local/etc/rc.d/pound restart > >None of the state that you affect using poundctl will withstand the >service being killed and restarted. Thanks, that's good to know, and news to me. I'm still trying to work out how to use poundctl to enable/disable different services. For now sudo /usr/local/etc/rc.d/pound restart is sufficient to right things. I'd like to ask you some questions about Pound on FreeBSD, which I'd hope would resolve this problem, but I there seems little point. Thanks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send big files for free. Simple steps. No registration. Visit now http://www.nawelny.com -- To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions.
