Can't apt-get when running Bridged NIC on Oracle Virtualbox Ubuntu Server 14.04



  • Having two NICs FIXED the issue. It was having one or the other that was the issue.



  • @ajstringham said:

    Having two NICs FIXED the issue. It was having one or the other that was the issue.

    So having only one bridge NIC did not work?



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @ajstringham said:

    Having two NICs FIXED the issue. It was having one or the other that was the issue.

    So having only one bridge NIC did not work?

    One bridge NIC works for everything but apt-get. One NAT NIC works for everything except accessing it like a web server. Using two balances it out and it works but I can't understand why a bridge connection would not work with apt-get while a NAT would...



  • @ajstringham said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @ajstringham said:

    Having two NICs FIXED the issue. It was having one or the other that was the issue.

    So having only one bridge NIC did not work?

    One bridge NIC works for everything but apt-get. One NAT NIC works for everything except accessing it like a web server. Using two balances it out and it works but I can't understand why a bridge connection would not work with apt-get while a NAT would...

    Maybe apt is misconfigured. Might be a good chance to work with CentOS 7.



  • @ajstringham This might be a long-shot but have you compared your ifconfig- a output to your /etc/network/interfaces output on your Ubuntu VM? What about using just NAT? Maybe the actual NIC/hardware doesn't "like" (very technical) IP aliasing since apt traffic on a NAT config is working.
    (Just my train of thought, might be completely irrelevant.)



  • @MattKing said:

    @ajstringham This might be a long-shot but have you compared your ifconfig- a output to your /etc/network/interfaces output on your Ubuntu VM? What about using just NAT? Maybe the actual NIC/hardware doesn't "like" (very technical) IP aliasing since apt traffic on a NAT config is working.
    (Just my train of thought, might be completely irrelevant.)

    It's possible. I'm honestly not going to worry about it. If having two NICs fixes it, great. Was more curious if anyone might know why off-hand. Thanks though!



  • @ajstringham Fair enough; "If it fits, I sits" just offering a look!



  • This is a really weird issue that I'd really like to figure out.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    This is a really weird issue that I'd really like to figure out.

    I would like to know why as well but it's not worth my time. If having one of each virtual NIC fixes it on Virtualbox, so be it. I have other things to worry about...lol



  • @ajstringham said:.

    I would like to know why as well but it's not worth my time. If having one of each virtual NIC fixes it on Virtualbox, so be it. I have other things to worry about...lol

    Actually, you talked about moving it. So this kind of hack is a really bad idea. If you are just moving the web directory, then that is different. Either way, this means something is seriously wrong. That is not a good sign for the health of the VirtualBox install itself.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @ajstringham said:.

    I would like to know why as well but it's not worth my time. If having one of each virtual NIC fixes it on Virtualbox, so be it. I have other things to worry about...lol

    Actually, you talked about moving it. So this kind of hack is a really bad idea. If you are just moving the web directory, then that is different. Either way, this means something is seriously wrong. That is not a good sign for the health of the VirtualBox install itself.

    I doubt it is VBox related. Probably just an odd network config.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @ajstringham said:.

    I would like to know why as well but it's not worth my time. If having one of each virtual NIC fixes it on Virtualbox, so be it. I have other things to worry about...lol

    Actually, you talked about moving it. So this kind of hack is a really bad idea. If you are just moving the web directory, then that is different. Either way, this means something is seriously wrong. That is not a good sign for the health of the VirtualBox install itself.

    I actually updated to the absolute latest version of Virtualbox right before I started the whole process, so I honestly don't know why it'd be a Virtualbox issue...I might try rebuilding the entire VM, from the VMDK up.



  • @ajstringham Got for the RC of CentOS 7. Get the maximum value from the effort.



  • I'll do that now.



  • @ajstringham said:

    I'll do that now.

    Awesome. CentOS 7 is looking pretty good. I've got one instance running. New thing.... default filesystem is XFS!



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @ajstringham said:

    I'll do that now.

    Awesome. CentOS 7 is looking pretty good. I've got one instance running. New thing.... default filesystem is XFS!

    I'm creating the VMDK now. My only concern is that, all my research suggests Ubuntu is the best distro to run a LAMP server on. I'm also much more familiar with Debian systems over RPM...



  • @ajstringham said:

    I'm creating the VMDK now. My only concern is that, all my research suggests Ubuntu is the best distro to run a LAMP server on. I'm also much more familiar with Debian systems over RPM...

    RHEL has always been the LAMP leader. No upside to Ubuntu for LAMP. That's not where Ubuntu is strong. Ubuntu is better for alternative, non-LAMP, application stacks like RoR and Node.js where RHEL's conservative approach is a major problem.

    Other than needing the EPEL enabled, RHEL is as straightforward as you really get for LAMP. Ubuntu has only squeaked by as being even a reasonable choice until the latest few releases.