Re: Virtual Box on FreeBSD Server

[Josh Beard]

As others have said, you can run VirtualBox without X.  The command line
tools provided by VirtualBox are pretty comprehensive and straight-forward.
 To add to that, there's also phpVirtualBox:
https://code.google.com/p/phpvirtualbox/  that provides a nice web
interface to managing your VMs, though it appears the project is on pause
right now.  I actually have a few semi-production servers running under
VirtualBox on a Linux host, as I found far better disk performance there
for FreeBSD guests than under KVM.  Hopefully that changes soon, if it
hasn't already.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I've been looking into setting up some Linux servers but instead I'm
 thinking that I could use Virtual Box on my FreeBSD servers to do this. I
 would like some seasoned advice from others on the following before
 proceeding:

 1. As I understand it you can install Virtual Box from the ports
 collection. But then I see the instructions in the Handbook:

   To launch VirtualBox, type from a Xorg session:
 % VirtualBox
 So am I to assume the only way to run Virtual Box is to have Xorg
 installed and running on the FreeBSD server?  Which is a drag because my
 current FreeBSD servers are exactly that, servers, and do not have the
 fancy video cards, monitors, etc.. to run Xorg. Is there an alternative to
 running the interface from Xorg. I'm a command line fanatic when it comes
 to servers. Or would I be able to install Xvnc or something like that and
 run it from one of my Windows 7 machines which has all the fancy
 video capabilities?


 2. Once installed, I will be able to install something like Fedora or
 openSUSE? These will only be installed as server so I can run databases
 like MySQL in the Linux environment. The client I'm working for insists on
 using SUSE...no FreeBSD allowed. They think it's poison and are very biased
 on this so there's no talking them out of it. I need to gain experience
 using these databases on Linux, not FreeBSD.

 3. I'm going to buy a 1 TB SATA drive for this setup. It will be running
 on an AMD64 server with FreeBSD 9.x or whatever is the latest release as of
 this weekend.

 4. There is also a Plan 'B' to go the other way. Since I already have two
 i7 machines running Windows 7, perhaps it might be better to install the
 Windows version of Virtual Box or even VMWare and create my instances of
 Linux on one or even both of these machines.

 Any advice would be appreciated.
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
 freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: denyhosts, fail2ban, or something else?

[Josh Beard]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Aleksandr Miroslav
alexmiros...@gmail.comwrote:

 Finally got sick of seeing tons of ssh break-in attempts in my logs. Am
 considering using denyhosts, or fail2ban. Anyone have any experience
 with these?

 I'm already using the AllowUsers facility of ssh to only allow specific
 users in, so I'm not overly concerned about the attempts.

 This is for a FreeBSD 8.x box running pf, btw.

 Thanks


I've been using fail2ban (security/py-fail2ban) for a few years on my
FreeBSD and Linux systems and can't complain.  I like that I can easily
write a regex for any arbitrary log file and perform any action I want.  By
default, the port will install both ipfw and pf actions.

I can't give an honest opinion about DenyHosts or SSHGuard, having never
used them.  Fail2Ban, however, isn't specific to a service or action -
simply a regex matches a log file and performs an action.

Josh
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

utx.log doesn't update for Samba unmounts

[Josh Beard]

Hello,

I'm running 9.1-PRERELEASE (built Aug 1) with Samba 3.6 from ports.

I've noticed that the last command's output shows still logged in for
all previous smb connections since the last shutdown.  However, smbstatus
seems accurate, showing only a handful of users connected.  For instance,
right now, 'last' shows 500 users still logged in, when it's really only
a few.  I discovered this via a Nagios alert that I had a couple hundred
users logged in.

The last time I had active SMB/CIFS users was in May of this year, and I
don't recall this happening then (judging from Nagios), but that was
9.0-RELEASE.

Can anyone reproduce this or does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org