Hi Dan, Here it is:
* - What karaf distribution did you use?* Latest 2.2.5 * - What is your host and OS type? * Linux Ubuntu 10.11 64-bits * - What did you change? * * *The change I made was in org.apache.karaf.management.cfg. I've changed the serviceUrl from "localhost" to "0.0.0.0" * - Are you able to to connect to karaf locally via same URL?? * * *I don't know how to test JMX from a shell console, but I can telnet to localhost 1099. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 14:29, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > Your URL is wrong jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://<host>:1099/karaf-root using > service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://<host>:1099/karaf-root" > > you will need to give more details: > > - What karaf distribution did you use? > > - What is your host and OS type? > > - What did you change? > > - Are you able to to connect to karaf locally via same URL?? > > > -Dan > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Thiago Souza <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Well, I still can not connect to JMX. I tried everything. I can even > > telnet to port 1099 from the client, but yet can't connect to JMX. I > always > > get: "Cannot connect > to service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://<host>:1099/karaf-root > > using service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://<host>:1099/karaf-root". > > That's really bad, hope I can convince the production team to > support my > > system without JMX, that won't be an easy task... > > > > Thank you all, > > Thiago Souza > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 18:45, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Reuben, > >> > >> I'd say this is less part of wisdom then of comfort or personal taste ;) > >> From my experience with deploying any type of server in a production > >> environment I'm personally in favor of closing everything up and > >> add extra documentation on how to enable wanted "security breaches" for > >> development or operation where needed. > >> > >> But again this is my personal feeling for it, and if disabling SSH is a > >> regression we surely don't want to do it for the 2.2.x line > >> but should consider it for the 3.0 line. > >> > >> Regards, Achim > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 28.03.2012 22:37, schrieb Reuben Garrett: > >> > >>> with due respect for those more experienced than i am, i feel it's best > >>> to disable by default any remote access, along the lines of "security > is > >>> mandatory" [1]. sure, the deployer of an instance is responsible for > tuning > >>> security - but it's nice to help people avoid mistakes. if necessary, > it > >>> could even be deferred to a major release if there's a real > >>> backwards-compatibility issue. > >>> > >>> that being said, i am still a fledgling, and i defer to the committers' > >>> wisdom. > >>> > >>> ~ Reuben > >>> > >>> [1]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management > >>> (below "Philosophy") > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> - Apache Karaf<http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer& PMC > >> - OPS4J Pax Web<http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > >> Committer& Project Lead > >> - Blog<http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> > >> > > >
