problems with 2nd level domains? (or is that 3rd)

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:59
rduval

problems with 2nd level domains? (or is that 3rd)

Using VM 3.66.gpl on Centos5.2 with PHP 5.2.9.

It's acting weird. Yeah I know that's not precise but it is.

First, if I create abc.com, its fine, creates a dir abc.com. If I create 123.abc.com it puts it in a directory called 123 not 123.abc.com.

Second, I backed up from my old server (which was supposedly3.66 as well, all updates) and restored to the new one. SOme domains work, others do not. Got error when it was merging the cron jobs. said something about invalid minutes.

Is this an "untested" combination? Should I have stayed at Centos 5.0? Is the PHP 5.2.9 the problem? I really wanted 5.2.9 for the filters.

Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:16
rduval

Oh, and when I start (or restart) httpd I get:
[code:1][warn] NameVirtualHost 74.xxx.xxx.xxx:443 has no VirtualHosts[/code:1]
I masked my IP above, the real address was there.<br><br>Post edited by: rduval, at: 2009/03/15 12:17

Sun, 03/15/2009 - 17:47 (Reply to #2)
andreychek

In /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf, there should be a VirtualHost section for port 443 on your IP there.

It's possible that it's misnamed as <VirtualHost *:443> rather than what it should be -- <VirtualHost 74.xxx.xxx.xxx:443>.

If you change it to use the IP rather than the *, then restart Apache, that may solve the problem.
-Eric

Mon, 03/16/2009 - 08:50
rduval

No, it's got the full line. As a matter of fact it's got 2 of them:

[code:1]NameVirtualHost 74.51.38.121:80
NameVirtualHost 74.51.38.121:443[/code:1]

Mon, 03/16/2009 - 08:54 (Reply to #4)
rduval

BTW, to the Moderator. There seems to be a bug in the forum software. I click on the link to edit the reply above and instead it edits the 2nd one from the top instead.

Mon, 03/16/2009 - 08:59 (Reply to #5)
andreychek

This forum software and it's integration with this site is absolutely terrible. It really is :-)

Every time we post another message on it, a kitten dies.

Joe is working on a new site that should help dramatically. In the meantime, kittens are dieing all over the place, and I'm not quite sure what to do about it! :-)
-Eric

Mon, 03/16/2009 - 09:21 (Reply to #6)
andreychek

As for your problem though -- it's good that you have the NameVirtualHost lines, but I'm actually moreso interested in the VirtualHost lines that define the Virtual Hosts for port 443.

There should be a line that looks like this:

<VirtualHost 74.51.38.121:443>

But I'm guessing that the line either doesn't exist altogether, or that the IP address is relaced with a "*".

It should have the IP address though.
-Eric

Tue, 03/17/2009 - 14:04
rduval

Oh, sorry. I kept thinking "whats this guy talking about it's already there" but what was there is NameVirtualHost not VirtualHost.

Should I just add the line and if so should I delete the NameVirtualHost lines?

Tue, 03/17/2009 - 14:23 (Reply to #8)
Joe
Joe's picture

<div class='quote'>Should I just add the line and if so should I delete the NameVirtualHost lines?</div>

No and no.

I think you're missing the point here a bit. ;-)

When Eric said, &quot;there should be a line that looks like this&quot;, he was saying, &quot;it should be there because if you enabled SSL in Virtualmin it will be there&quot;. He was not saying, &quot;You should just shove it in there somewhere.&quot; That VirtualHost line is opening a whole section in the configuration file...most of the time the section will be several lines long (like 20 to 30 lines on a Virtualmin system with a lot of features enabled).

As for the second part, deleting the NameVirtualHost lines...why would you do that? Those are necessary for the VirtualHost sections that follow that use those IP:port combinations. You <i>could</i> safely delete the port 443 one. But you don't want to delete the other one.

Anyway, you have a NameVirtualHost for SSL on that IP but no VirtualHosts that use that IP:port combo. This isn't a big deal, regardless. It's just a warning...harmless.

So, what was the problem again?

<div class='quote'>Is this an &quot;untested&quot; combination? Should I have stayed at Centos 5.0? Is the PHP 5.2.9 the problem?</div>

As for this bit. No, you definitely shouldn't be running an ancient version of CentOS 5. When we say &quot;CentOS 5&quot; in the OS support list we mean, &quot;the latest version of CentOS 5&quot;. All &quot;5.x&quot; versions are binary compatible. That's why we recommend CentOS/RHEL so strongly for server usage. It is a very stable, and long-lasting OS that is very predictable.

PHP 5.2.9 has nothing to do with any question that I can see in this thread. Webmin/Virtualmin don't use PHP for anything (you can run Webmin/Virtualmin on a system that has <i>no</i> PHP and it won't complain even a little bit), and obviously PHP has nothing to do with domain names or Apache VirtualHosts.

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Topic locked