The enormous Virtualisation help thread

[Brett]

Originally Posted by hollstar

the third runs Samba so the Exchange box (SBS2003) has something to backup to.

Have you considered installing Services for Unix on the SBS box and utilising NFS?

[hollstar]

Originally Posted by 3t3rna1

<snip> So first you need to extend the LV on the host whilst the VM is offline. Once the VM boots it will recognize the disk being larger </snip>

Without a word of a lie, I did try that before posting. After a reboot, the size wasn't adjusted which threw me for six. Part of me assumed it involved resizing the partition in order to see this change but that went against my judgement so to speak. Based on what I'd been reading, comments Elvis had made in previous threads, I thought I was going down the right road?

Anyway, rebooting the host and not auto starting the VM was my answer. Thanks for the reassurance mate!

Originally Posted by Brett

Have you considered installing Services for Unix on the SBS box and utilising NFS?

In a word, No. Not any one specific reason (in saying that, lack of knowledge in part), however another part of me would like the easy option of accessing the share from Workstations if need be hence the logically Samba road I guess?

[Kafoopsy]

I'm trying to get Windows 98 running in Virrtualbox. How do I install video drivers? I can't work out what sort of video adapter is used in the virtual machine. Ditto for sound and network drivers too.

[elvis]

Originally Posted by Kafoopsy

I'm trying to get Windows 98 running in Virrtualbox. How do I install video drivers? I can't work out what sort of video adapter is used in the virtual machine. Ditto for sound and network drivers too.

The unofficial Virtualbox doco is here:
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9918

Have you tried it in KVM? By default KVM uses a highly compatible emulated Cirrus card, which Win98 had native drivers for.

[foxmulder881]

I'm just gonna reboot this thread for no particular reason. I installed a few virtual servers in the past week or so. I'm running a virtual file server, FTP server, web server and just today booted my MySQL server. All have both Telnet and SSH access for PuTTY.

[High-Fidelity]

Originally Posted by foxmulder881

I'm just gonna reboot this thread for no particular reason. I installed a few virtual servers in the past week or so. I'm running a virtual file server, FTP server, web server and just today booted my MySQL server. All have both Telnet and SSH access for PuTTY.

Why telnet and SSH? I'd ditch the telnet and just stick with SSH with public/private keys for authentication.

Which hyper visor did you use?

[foxmulder881]

Originally Posted by High-Fidelity

Why telnet and SSH? I'd ditch the telnet and just stick with SSH with public/private keys for authentication.

Which hyper visor did you use?

I have both Telnet and SSH because SSH gives me bash shell and Telnet gives me CMD.

[High-Fidelity]

Originally Posted by foxmulder881

I have both Telnet and SSH because SSH gives me bash shell and Telnet gives me CMD.

Not sure I follow you. They achieve the same thing, it's just that one is secure and the other isn't. It's worth avoiding telnet, especially if it exposed to the outside world.

[chip]

Originally Posted by High-Fidelity

Not sure I follow you. They achieve the same thing, it's just that one is secure and the other isn't. It's worth avoiding telnet, especially if it exposed to the outside world.

Maybe it means that there's a VM running a Windows server with the telnet service enabled? It's hard to tell for sure.

[foxmulder881]

Originally Posted by High-Fidelity

Not sure I follow you. They achieve the same thing, it's just that one is secure and the other isn't. It's worth avoiding telnet, especially if it exposed to the outside world.

It's only used internally. And that depends what you mean by "achieving the same thing". They're two entirely different syntax's and used for very different reasons.

Originally Posted by chip

Maybe it means that there's a VM running a Windows server with the telnet service enabled? It's hard to tell for sure.

Yes, this.

What's hard to understand about it. SSH logs in to a Bash syntax through the use of Cygwin and MobaSSH. Telnet logs in to a native Windows CMD (or Powershell) syntax through the use of KpyM.

[chip]

Originally Posted by foxmulder881

What's hard to understand about it. SSH logs in to a Bash syntax through the use of Cygwin and MobaSSH. Telnet logs in to a native Windows CMD (or Powershell) syntax through the use of KpyM.

Your post was hard to understand because there wasn't enough background information about your setup, and seems to be conflating the connection protocol (Telnet/SSH) with the actual shell (BASH/cmd) running on the machine. (The Telnet protocol doesn't have a 'syntax' in the same way a BASH shell does, for example.)

[foxmulder881]

Originally Posted by chip

Your post was hard to understand because there wasn't enough background information about your setup, and seems to be conflating the connection protocol (Telnet/SSH) with the actual shell (BASH/cmd) running on the machine. (The Telnet protocol doesn't have a 'syntax' in the same way a BASH shell does, for example.)

But I did point out that Telnet was using CMD, in this post here.

[chip]

Originally Posted by foxmulder881

But I did point out that Telnet was using CMD, in this post here.

That's exactly the source of the head-scratching for people who deal with this on a daily basis. At no point up until then had you mentioned that any of this was running on a Windows box, and it's not an obvious guess seeing as it's the Virtualisation megathread in the Other Operating Systems subforum. If you'd just posted 'I'm running a telnet server on a windows box for local shell access' then all the confusion would've been avoided

[foxmulder881]

Originally Posted by chip

That's exactly the source of the head-scratching for people who deal with this on a daily basis. At no point up until then had you mentioned that any of this was running on a Windows box, and it's not an obvious guess seeing as it's the Virtualisation megathread in the Other Operating Systems subforum.

For the record, that was only my second post in the thread. You act as though there were 10 other posts before it. There was not. Only one! And I never said it was running on a Windows box. That's just your assumption. Just because the guests virtual servers are Windows servers, they're still running on a Debian host.

[chip]

I give up. Is english not your first language?