Welcome to the Lounge

Marc Clifton3-Jan-19 0:59

Marc Clifton

3-Jan-19 0:59

raddevus wrote:
Serverless means that the developers can do their work without having to worry about servers at all.

I've never worked at a company that provided servers while I worked. Would be nice. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads

Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny

Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802

raddevus3-Jan-19 2:00

raddevus

3-Jan-19 2:00

Marc Clifton wrote:
I've never worked at a company that provided servers while I worked. Would be nice.

A very good point. Have to hope for the hardware and then if you get it you have to beg for admin rights. Laugh | :laugh:

Ryan Peden3-Jan-19 9:16

Ryan Peden

3-Jan-19 9:16

I used to be annoyed by the term 'serverless' until I stopped thinking of it as a description of the underlying technology, and started thinking of it as a description of the billing model. I don't have to care if it's running on a server, or a potato, or a kitten, as long as I'm always billed the same amount for the normalized amount of computing resources I've consumed.

Overall, instead of 'serverless', I prefer Functions as as Service (FaaS). That gives a decent idea of what to expect, and gives a relatively easy way to compare it against IaaS (like EC2 and other bits of AWS) and PaaS (Like Azure App Service and Google App Engine).

Linux Weekend v2 - VirtualBox Weirdness

raddevus3-Jan-19 10:26

raddevus

3-Jan-19 10:26

Ryan Peden wrote:
I prefer Functions as as Service (FaaS).

I agree with you and I think your naming is much better. The whole issue was that I came across this serverless term and thought, "Hmm...is this a PWA (Progressive Web App) of some sort? Something just running on client?"
Words are important! Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

No CCC today?

Fueled By Decaff2-Jan-19 5:16

Fueled By Decaff

2-Jan-19 5:16

Wasn't it new entrant walterhevedeich that won it before Christmas?

Re: No CCC today?

OriginalGriff2-Jan-19 5:22

OriginalGriff

2-Jan-19 5:22

It was: @walterhevedeich
I think he forgot ... he can be up tomorrow then ... Laugh | :laugh:

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 4:28

2-Jan-19 4:28

So I have two VirtualBox VMs - one is Lubuntu 18.04, and one is Win7. Both VMs are configured to use the bridged network adapter setting on the same host adapter. Up until Saturday (the last time I used it before I discovered the problem), the Win7 one was working fine (I could see the network shares and the host machine). When I went to use it again on Monday, neither the host machine nor the network shares are showing up in Windows Explorer. The Lubuntu VM still sees the host and network shares.

The only thing I can think of that could possibly have broken the Win7 VM is that I applied updates after I was done using it. However, there were no hardware driver updates performed (in fact my network adapter driver date is May 2008). Before I go through the hassle of rolling back the updates, has anyone else seen this kind of VirtualBox VM networking weirdness? I don't think the problem is with VirtualBox itself because the Lubuntu VM is still working fine.

When I do an IPCONFIG /ALL command in the Win7 VM, there is no default gateway listed, and the IP is some random value. I also cannot ping ANY machine on the local network. As you might guess, I also don't have internet access from the VM.

I posted a message on the VirtualBox community forums, but I figured I'd hit y'all up as well.

In the interest of completeness of info, it's VirtualBox v5.22 pulled from the Ubuntu repositories.

I'm considering updating VirtualBox to the freshly released 6.0, but I don't really want to add yet one more unknown to the current problem.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

Rob Philpott2-Jan-19 5:30

Rob Philpott

2-Jan-19 5:30

Well if you take all the virtual stuff out the picture, I've seen Windows behave like this before. You'd get an ip address starting with 169 and be totally stuffed network wise. There used to be some network reset tool thing, but I can't remember the details.

Perhaps this might be worth a go:

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheNuclearOptionResettingTheCrapOutOfYourNetworkAdaptersInVista.aspx

Regards,
Rob Philpott.

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 5:58

2-Jan-19 5:58

I'll give that a shot when I get home. If that works, I might even create a batch file to run when it breaks again. Smile | :)

Ron Nicholson2-Jan-19 6:06

Ron Nicholson

2-Jan-19 6:06

The 169 address is used by default when it can't reach a dhcp server or doesn't have a specific ip address on that card.

A reboot will attempt to connect again, but no one has time for that. Big Grin | :-D

In lieu of that you can do an ipconfig /renew. This will attempt to get the IP from dhcp.

I'm assuming your host has access to the network.

HTH.

Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 7:21

2-Jan-19 7:21

Actually, I don't think it does (have access to the network). In the output for IPCONFIG, the gateway IP is null (empty), and the IPv4 IP starts with "169". I have two things to try (the network stack reset, and deleting the adapter from device manager). I'm hopefull that one of those two things work. As it stands right now, nothing network related works in the Windows VM.

modified 2-Jan-19 13:35pm.

Ron Nicholson2-Jan-19 7:45

Ron Nicholson

2-Jan-19 7:45

Before you delete the adapter, change your VM to use NAT instead of Bridged Adapter. I'm sure that NAT will work, if not then your problem is with the host, but changing and then changing it back to Bridged Adapter might be enough to reset the VM.

Ron

Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 8:49

2-Jan-19 8:49

I don't think it's the host because my Linux VM works just fine as far as the network adapter is concerned. I can see the host box, and the network shares with it.

Rick York2-Jan-19 9:26

Rick York

2-Jan-19 9:26

Also try disabling and then re-enabling the adapter. I have done that a few times and things just magically started working again.

"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 9:40

2-Jan-19 9:40

Already tried that. No change.

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 7:01

2-Jan-19 7:01

BTW, the IPv4 address indeed starts with "169"...

lopatir2-Jan-19 5:57

lopatir

2-Jan-19 5:57

I did have a similar occurrence, managed to get it back with a bit of mucking around
not sure what got it working, possibly one of:
1. in windows delete the network device (dev manager) and reboot to force it to reinstall
2. try changing the VB network adapter type or/and connection type (i.e. NAT, & advanced settings for card type) - windows should then load the new driver type (all stock settings).
3. I also remember at one time adding a second adapter (again different card and connect type, i.e. NAT), disabling the first, boot up - it connected, then put it back

It's back to how it was before failed, one of the above did something, eventually it just worked again. (cant remember which above formula did it - was fiddling about with it half distracted at the time so didn't pay attention to which of above I did last).

In short I farted about with the various settings on both parties
... believe it was all about making windows and/or virtualbox refresh/re-init their settings.

Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)

dandy722-Jan-19 6:38

dandy72

2-Jan-19 6:38

I tend to assign static IPs to all my VMs. If for nothing else, it becomes obvious that the OS thinks something has changed if suddenly your IP no longer matches what you'd expect. When that happens, then changing the settings back to what you know used to work usually gets everything working again.

Mark_Wallace2-Jan-19 9:37

2-Jan-19 9:37

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When I do an IPCONFIG /ALL command in the Win7 VM, there is no default gateway listed, and the IP is some random value.

Have you tried copying the default gateway addy from the Lubuntu VM and assigning it to the windows VM, then setting a fixed IP in the same range for the windows VM?

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 9:43

2-Jan-19 9:43

I was trying to avoid setting a static IP. That will, however, be my last resort if deleting the adapter and/or resetting the IP stack don't work. I considered setting a static IP last night, but I see no reason why the Windows VM shouldn't work just as well as the Linux VM does.

Mark_Wallace2-Jan-19 9:48

2-Jan-19 9:48

You should at least set the default gateway. Without that, it might not be able to figure out where to go.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 9:51

2-Jan-19 9:51

With DHCP, you don't have to (and can't) set it explicitly.

Mark_Wallace2-Jan-19 10:08

2-Jan-19 10:08

Sure, but it's windows, and windows networking has always been notorious for not knowing where to look (largely because it guesses at values based on previous config, which, with a VM, can get slightly random).

Set the default gateway, reboot the machine within the VM, then go back to autoconfig. It might behave itself, then (once you've rebooted it again -- windows networking just can't be happy without reboots).

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

#realJSOP2-Jan-19 10:55

2-Jan-19 10:55

And the weirdness continues...

When I got home from work, I started the VM, and now everything is fine - without me having to do anything. I'm at a loss.

Mark_Wallace2-Jan-19 20:54