Hi Dan,

*- Minimum, standard, or enterprise? *
*
*
Standard

*- how do you invoke karaf? *
*
*
bin/start (under root)

*- what are your jmx port, adn your registry port?*
*
*
defaults, 1099 and 44444

*- Can you run Xwindow to your ubuntu box and run Jconsole from there?*
*
*
unfortunately not...

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 16:55, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thiago Souza <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> >    Here it is:
> >
> >  - What karaf distribution did you use?
> >    Latest 2.2.5
>
> Minimum, standard, or enterprise?
>
> >
> >  - What is your host and OS type?
> >    Linux Ubuntu 10.11 64-bits
>
> how do you invoke karaf?
>
> >
> >  - 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"
>
> what are your jmx port, adn your registry port?
>
> >
> >  - 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.
> >
>
> Can you run Xwindow to your ubuntu box and run Jconsole from there?
>
>
> >
> > 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/>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to