I have been running a gitlab instance and today I was trying to setup the pages function. I followed the gitlab guides and google cloud docs, it seems my config file got corrupt or broke (by me ofc) and even the ssh was down (directly on google console) till I rebooted the VM. Now I'm able to see that the instance is working on the shell but can't get it back online, I have 3 options here, 1) I wait a day or so to see if this is a domain/dns issue, 2) keep trying to a recover the gitlab that only had 3 users and no projects, or 3) make a fresh one and try to setup everything well from the start. The only things bothering me is losing 2 users that came to my project organically.
What can I do here? I'm trying to fix the config file but at the same time I don't know if its a domain issue because I had to change some dns configs to set the subdomain. The only thing I cannot understand really is how or why did my shell went down for at least a hour after I changed the configurations for gitlab. And btw are snapshots the right way to make backups with gcloud ?
What can I do here?
Undo your changes; in other words, put things back they way they were before, when the system was working. To do that, you have to know exactly what you changed.
If you are not keeping your config file in version control, you should start to do that, as that will make it easier to track and control your changes.
I decided to answer my question since I know how this problem occurred and it may occur for others.
Conditions:
Have a Gitlab self hosted.
Try to setup DNS settings for Gitlab Pages and the URL stop
responding even if the Gitlab instance still runs on the machine.
Here we can see the problem was in the DNS setup.
In my case I setup different DNS cases in my DOMAIN service DNS settings. Instead this DNS setup have to be made in your HOST/SERVER side.
To properly make a Gitlab DNS:
the wildcard domain *.mydomain.com type A should be on the server config, in my case gcloud DNS. Find out the software you use for your main machine server config.
Its good practice to setup the domain and server without redirection and set the proper DNS on the DOMAIN settings. This way your domain will resolve the subdomains without need for redirection on the DOMAIN settings. Once you set a wildcard type A record you can or cannot make the subdomain as a CNAME example, subdomain.mydomain.com. or you can use a separate IP for the subdomain with a type A record.
In summary, when setting up Gitlab Pages DNS do not change your DOMAIN settings, change your SERVER DNS settings.
Related
I currently have the same problem as described in this question question!
I can access my Node.js site only if i modify my own hosts file to have (serverIP) NameOfSite, but typing that into the url doesnt work.
In the comments under the ansewer to that question it says that the person fixed this issue by adding a rule in their DNS. How would you do that? I am googling how to make rules in DNS and its not getting me anywhere and im seeing a lot of sites about firewalls.
I created a new Azure Web App (web site) on the path https://todoangular1-b-nschou.azurewebsites.net and I tried to access the Kudu Debug Console by inserting 'scm' between the application name and the domain name. Like this:
https://todoangular1-b-nschou.scm.azurewebsites.net/
However, the site is not available.
Some more research showed that the error was caused by a failing DNS resolution. I then added an entry to my hosts file pointing todoangular1-b-nschou.scm.azurewebsites.net to the same ip-address as todoangular1-b-nschou.azurewebsites.net and suddenly it worked.
My own conclusion is that the Azure platform did not properly add the new DNS-name under the scm.azurewebsites.net zone. Did anyone else experience this odd behavior?
What probably happened is that there was a small delay in DNS propagation. But if you try hitting the site before that, you would then be affected by DNS negative caching on your machine, which can last a little while. My guess is that during that time, if you had tried to access it from a different machine that didn't have the negative caching, it would have worked (and it works fine now).
I decided to reinstall Sitecore 8 instance via wizard, I have removed instance and install a new one with the same name XYZ.
but after reinstall it I am getting an error in browser - ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED
I checked IIS binding, I checked hosts file, reset DNS, restart PC and etc I still get this error in any browsers.
How I can fix it? What is the issue?
I have found solution https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2823477 but I can't understend how sitecore installer can change it.
Generally, the process of site resolution goes in the following consequence:
DNS - find ip address by the hostname (from request header)
Access IIS with that IP (and port if not default 80)
IIS checks bindings by hostname from header and serves corresponding website.
Website being resolved has (merged) web.config in root folder. It has node with all sites served by current Sitecore instance, being listed. Order does matter! First successful match (by hostname or port or default) works it out.
Site being found on previous step has startItem property which is your Sitecore item served by dafault.
Please go and carefully check all those steps to see where it breaks. Also I have previously write a blog post, you may find it helpful with more details on that:
http://blog.martinmiles.net/post/how-websites-are-resolved-with-sitecore
Do any sites work with a Local name configured in 'hosts'?
You may need to disable the Loopback Check in your tcpip stack. Windows uses this as a countermeasure for man in the middle attacks by default on many systems. A registry change is needed to allow a machine to refer to itself using a name that is not its own Hostname. Sorry, but I can't remember the actual key.
I've finished url dynamic rewrite module on my local computer, iis, everything is working but I have to deploy it to the production server now, which will cause errors. Do you have any idea how to avoid them?
If you have done similar thing before...
Thanks in advance
You could create a copy of the production server in a virtual machine and try to deploy your rewrite rules there.
VirtualBox is a simple engine to create a VM.
I do mine within a test vm environment then make my edits to the Production Site off hours to avoid the IIS Restart when saving rules.
If you want to move them up in one piece I have thought of making the edits to the machine.config file but after some discussions with our IT group found that was not a workable solution. Editing the rules on the Web Servers then testing them after being added is the course I have followed so far.
I am aware of weblogic templates, but out of curiosity I wanted to know, Is it ok to copy a domain in weblogic in situations where we need to have the same configuration? I have already done the same and have been successful in testing my application.
You can get away with doing this, but there are a couple of more reliable (and scriptable) ways to migrate the same configuration through the development team, or to create new deployment environments.
The domain template builder lets you build your own custom domain template from an existing domain: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13179_01/common/docs92/tempbuild/starttb.html
There's a couple of ways to get it done with WLST, as well:
You can use configToScript to spit out an entire WLST script (and properties file) to recreate the exact configuration you've got, or...
You can use readDomain and writeDomain in offline mode to recreate an existing configuration in a new domain:
readDomain: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13222_01/wls/docs92/config_scripting/reference.html#wp1003638
writeDomain: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13222_01/wls/docs92/config_scripting/reference.html#wp1003688
It's okay to copy the domains over and it worked exceptionally well prior to WebLogic 9.2. However, there are some weird bugs that pop up for versions that are using the portal for the console.
Also, after copying the file you would want to make sure that all listen addresses and ports have been modified accordingly so that your local managed server doesn't attempt to connect to the production administration server on startup.