InterWorx-CP 3.0-RC4 Available - Last RC before offical release!

[IWorx-Paul]

Information about the RC3, RC2 and RC1 releases can be found here:
RC3: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021
RC2: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1999
RC1: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1990

If you haven't read those threads, you may want to. A number of questions are answered there.


The RC3, RC2 and RC1 threads are now locked, post questions to this thread instead.

We recommend everyone that has installed RC1, RC2 and/or RC3, and anyone that hasn't upgraded yet but would like to help test, update their servers with the following command:

rpm -Uvh http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm \
http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm \
http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm

A limited demo is available here
https://demo-iworx3.interworx.com:2443/nodeworx/

NodeWorx login:
username: demo-iworx3@interworx.com
password: demo

SiteWorx login:
username: demo-iworx3@interworx.com
password: demo
domain: demo-iworx3.interworx.com

RC4 includes the following changes/fixes:
* A handful of fixes to the backup/restore/import system
* Fixes to the SPF and SRV record types - that is, when adding them, they work now. SPF record format is the same as the TXT type, you can use either for SPF records.
* Fixes to the cluster-node-add process, for accounts with SSL set up and accounts with dedicated IPs
* Fix how the secondary domain's NS records get added (based on the parent domain now)
* Some folks that upgraded to previous RC's hit a bug where the SiteWorx user's theme was not set during upgrade, which lead to a few different problems. This update fixes that for those users.
* Fix incorrect display of backup file storage usage in NodeWorx
* Bayes training folders system improved (faster)
* Fix a few problems with deleting MySQL databases, and MySQL user permissions in SiteWorx.

NOTE: This is the last Release Candidate (RC) before the offical version 3.0 release that will auto-update for servers with auto-updating enabled (the default). Any problems found in RC4 will be fixed in the offical release. We don't expect the offical release to be more than a week away from now. If you haven't updated to any of the release candidates yet and to see what to expect when 3.0 is released, now is the time!

Thanks again to everyone that has helped test so far! One more push and we'll have this release complete.

Paul

[xk.James]

Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:interworx ########################################### [ 33%]
2:interworx-siteworx ########################################### [ 67%]
3:interworx-nodeworx ########################################### [100%]

Successful install this time around.

Thanks Paul

[IWorx-Paul]

Hi,

With the V3.0 release it is now possible to :
- Create a DNS template and so use a SPF template
- Use a record type named SPF (rather than TXT)


Ok I'll give you an example and ask you how this example could be set in V3.0

Say we have a domain name called domain.com .
- this domain has a A dns record.
- The mx for this domain is so mail.domain.com
- And finally the mail server on the box which host this domain is called clust01.domain.com


So we should create a SPF record like this one

v=spf1 a mx ~all

Which means that for this domain, the A and MX record can send email and all others should normally not !

ps: v=spf1 means that it is a TXT record and not a SPF one, right, so for a SPF record type what is the syntax ?


The syntax is the same as with the TXT record. You can use TXT records or SPF record type in the DNS interface, and the format is the same. From the user perspective, there really isn't any difference, and it's only slightly different in how the backend exports the records, but you don't need to worry about that :).


The SPF wizard also talk about the HELO domain used by the mail server :

If you run BIND
Paste this into your zone file:

carat-hosting.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"

When a mail server sends a bounce message, it uses a null MAIL FROM: <>, and a HELO address that's supposed to be its own name. SPF will still operate, but in "degraded mode" by using the HELO domain name instead. Because this wizard can't tell which name your mail server uses in its HELO command, it lists all possible names, so there may be multiple lines shown below. If you know which hostname your mail server uses in its HELO command, you should pick out the appropriate entries and ignore the rest.

So this should also appear in DNS. You may or may not be in charge of the DNS for these entries; if you are, add them.

clust01.domain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
mail.domain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"

If you run tinydns (djbdns)

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600

So it explains that we also have to add the name the mail server use and we have to add a SPF records in the DNS for this name.

It looks like that for TinyDns we have to add a SPF record for the MX server, for the A record and also for the mail server name !

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600


How this could be created with :
- The dns template
- directly for a domain



For the "domain.com" dns zone, you only need the first line - the
'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600
Via the NodeWorx interface, that just translates as a SPF record with
Host: domain.com Target: v=spf1 a mx ~all

That is only correct if the IP address you get when pinging domain.com is the same as the main IP of the server - which is the IP the mail will be sent from. If that's not the case, you need to make sure that IP address is "valid" in your SPF record. So a SPF record with
Target: v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.domain.com ~all
might be more correct.

The other two are for bounce messages - when the "From" header isn't applicable - so it uses the "HELO" host to do a check. In your case, the HELO host is the "Mail Server Hostname (FQDN)" in NodeWorx->System Servers->Mail Server->MTA. It may be "clust01.domain.com" in your case.
In that case, you should indeed add another SPF record to the domain.com zone. Host: clust01.domain.com Target: v=spf1 a -all
This tells the receiving mail system that bounce messages from whatever IP address clust01.domain.com resolves to is "valid mail". You need an "A" record set up for clus01.domain.com in that case, if it isn't already.

The above example is a bit more complex than the normal scenario. Normally, the main SPF record for normal mail (not bounce messages) will not be under the same zone as the bounce message spf records.

The "bounce message" spf records normally go under a different DNS zone - usually that of your host, "yourisp.com" for example.

So then the "bounce message" spf records would go under the yourisp.com zone, and there would be one for clust01.yourisp.com. There is probably a short cut method to use to specify multiple servers, for *.yourisp.com, but check the SPF documentation.

So - using the DNS template system on the server clust01.yourisp.com, you'd add a record to the DNS template Zone, that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com ~all


Finally, I have a special case which is cluster.

We do a load-balncing for smtp/pop3/imap connexion, in fact all mails are sent not from the cluster manager it self (clust01.domain.com) but from a node called clust02.domain.com (but with the IP of the MX/A record for this domain)

So we'd also add the name of the mail server of the nodes that could send emails !?
is it correct ?

So to conclude we should have, for one domaine, few SPF records :

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600 ---> the A record
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the MX record
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on the CM
'clust02.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on the node

and in fact
'clustXX.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on every nodes that could sent an email (and a bounce message)

Is it correct ?

If yes how could we set up this in interworx v3.0 using the DNS template for new domains and using the dns editor for existing domains ?

Thanks a ton

Pascal

As described above, you don't need all those SPF records for each domain. You need one SPF record that allows all the nodes in the cluster to be "valid" senders. So one SPF record that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com a:clust02.yourisp.com ~all

Then, in your zone for "yourisp.com" you create an SPF records like
clust01.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all
clust02.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all

This handles the "bounce message" scenario - which is arguably less important than the "main" domain SPF record.

This SPF stuff can get complicated huh :)

Paul

[bear]

install went well :D

Not sure if i have missed this, so apologies if the option is already available.

Just something i find useful on another hosting panel i use and wondered if it could be added to interworx.

When i changing an option on an existing sitworx/nodeworx package in package management.
Would it be possible to have a synchronise option so that all siteworx account users using that package have they account updated with the new option i have just changed.

If you have many accounts and you change an option on a package it would save
editing them one by one.

Thank you

[IWorx-Socheat]

When i changing an option on an existing sitworx/nodeworx package in package management.
Would it be possible to have a synchronise option so that all siteworx account users using that package have they account updated with the new option i have just changed.

If you have many accounts and you change an option on a package it would save
editing them one by one.

Unfortunately, this isn't possible in InterWorx. As it stands, there is no "link" between an account and packages after the account is created. Once the account is created, we don't store anywhere that "account A" is mapped to "package B", which is what would be needed to do what you propose. We may consider it for a future version, but no promises. :)

[bear]

ok no problem but thought i would ask.
thanks for your reply

[ugh82]

I just upgraded successfuly to the new rc 4.

My question is that can add an option in backup , to backup only mysql ?
I know that you can do it through phpmyadmin , but i have many customers that have updates only in mysql and i like the idea to automatically backup only the mysql.

[Hexadecimal]

Installation went perfectly. Thanks again for all the hard work guys!

[WebXtrA]

I'm getting the following error while installing this RC on a server:

[root@iworx2 etc]# rpm -Uvh http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:interworx ########################################### [ 33%]
2:interworx-siteworx ########################################### [ 67%]
3:interworx-nodeworx ########################################### [100%]
PHP Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 12 bytes) in /usr/local/interworx/include/siteworx/Option.php on line 136
Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 0 bytes)
error: %post(interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1
Where can I change the memory limit?

EDIT: Found the solution.

[IWorx-Socheat]

Where can I change the memory limit?

Edit /home/interworx/etc/php.ini

[IWorx-Paul]

Socheat meant to say

Edit: ~iworx/etc/php-cgi.ini

:)


And I meant to fix that stupid bug in this release :mad: sorry about that.

[IWorx-Tim]

I just upgraded successfuly to the new rc 4.

My question is that can add an option in backup , to backup only mysql ?
I know that you can do it through phpmyadmin , but i have many customers that have updates only in mysql and i like the idea to automatically backup only the mysql.

SiteWorx already has this fature. :-)

[ugh82]

I only check out through the nodeworx!
You rocks! I'm lamer!:)

I'm Waiting for the final release:)

[WebXtrA]

Seems that this RC is good to go! Running it on 2 production servers w/o problems!

Runs also great in a Xen DomU and OpenVZ VPS!

But... I'm still waiting for the DNS editing feature for siteworx accounts ;)

[Henrik]

Will the DNS-edit function be included at all?

[WebXtrA]

I probabbly found a bug:

Some scripts in scriptworx are 0.0 Mbyte in size, when I try to install them I get this error:
» There was a problem untarring the files to the installation directory

These scripts are 0 in size:
phpMyFaq
Photo Galleries
Coppermine
ZenCart
OpenAds
phpNuke
Nucleus

[IWorx-Socheat]

Will the DNS-edit function be included at all?

What do you mean by "DNS-edit function"?

[IWorx-Socheat]

Some scripts in scriptworx are 0.0 Mbyte in size, when I try to install them I get this error:
» There was a problem untarring the files to the installation directory


Open a ticket and we'll check it out.

[thinksmart12]

Looks great so far. The installation was successful.

One thing though. The Spam and Ham training folders do not seem to "train" from every email.

[Henrik]

What do you mean by "DNS-edit function"?

The scriptworx users will be able to edit their own DNS-settings for all domains allocated underneath their scriptworx account.

[Henrik]

Looks great so far. The installation was successful.

One thing though. The Spam and Ham training folders do not seem to "train" from every email.

Are you using the global setting? If so, the same behaviour is in 2.1.3

[thinksmart12]

What do you mean in 2.1.3?

[IWorx-Socheat]

The scriptworx users will be able to edit their own DNS-settings for all domains allocated underneath their scriptworx account.

I think you mean SiteWorx and not ScriptWorx. But no, v.3.0 does not have a SiteWorx DNS editing feature. Good chance it will be in a future version though.

[Henrik]

I think you mean SiteWorx and not ScriptWorx. But no, v.3.0 does not have a SiteWorx DNS editing feature. Good chance it will be in a future version though.

yes I do, pardon me.


@thinksmart12: When you enable the global bayes database, you won't get an individual counter per user, at least I don't.

[pascal]

Hi,

Just one question, the RC4 is 10 days old and there is only 2 thread pages :) So I could conclude this last RC seems to be very good.

Any idea about a target date for the final release ? do you have some kinds of milestones before this ?

Just to be uptodate :-p

Pascal

[Fr3d]

I'd love to test this... only problem is my server/installation is dieing (slowly), so I have no RPM database anymore (thanks to yum messing it up) <_<

Hopefully I will be able to replace the server soon, and then I can test it - it looks good so far, from what I've seen and heard :)

[pascal]

The syntax is the same as with the TXT record. You can use TXT records or SPF record type in the DNS interface, and the format is the same


Ok thanks Paul, it is important to confirm this as v=spf1 means that the dns record type is a TXT one. So the ok, you just export the SPF record exactly as the TXT one.



...... So a SPF record with
Target: v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.domain.com ~all
might be more correct.


It's how I understand this, indeed.
To generalize your note we could say that on a box there is most the time few IPs. One is the main IP of the server (which is the IP the mail will be sent from) and others are shared or dedicated to few accounts.

So in a "template" perspective I think it is good to have :
Target: v=spf1 a mx a:FQDN ~all

Correct ?


The other two are for bounce messages - when the "From" header isn't applicable - so it uses the "HELO" host to do a check. In your case, the HELO host is the "Mail Server Hostname (FQDN)" in NodeWorx->System Servers->Mail Server->MTA. It may be "clust01.domain.com" in your case.
In that case, you should indeed add another SPF record to the domain.com zone. Host: clust01.domain.com Target: v=spf1 a -all
This tells the receiving mail system that bounce messages from whatever IP address clust01.domain.com resolves to is "valid mail". You need an "A" record set up for clus01.domain.com in that case, if it isn't already.


About this, if I remember well, the default FQDN mail server name is the default FQDN you gave to the boxe ?
The A record isn't it added by default when you define, in nodeworx, the default FQDN ?

If yes for both, so by default, only for a dns template point of view, we should have :

Host:domain.com Target: v=spf1 a mx a:FQDN ~all
Host:FQDN Target: v=spf1 a -all



The above example is a bit more complex than the normal scenario. Normally, the main SPF record for normal mail (not bounce messages) will not be under the same zone as the bounce message spf records.

The "bounce message" spf records normally go under a different DNS zone - usually that of your host, "yourisp.com" for example.


By "yourisp.com" do you talk about my ISP or talk about my FQDN host name, right ?

So then the "bounce message" spf records would go under the yourisp.com zone, and there would be one for clust01.yourisp.com. There is probably a short cut method to use to specify multiple servers, for *.yourisp.com, but check the SPF documentation.

So - using the DNS template system on the server clust01.yourisp.com, you'd add a record to the DNS template Zone, that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com ~all

As described above, you don't need all those SPF records for each domain. You need one SPF record that allows all the nodes in the cluster to be "valid" senders. So one SPF record that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com a:clust02.yourisp.com ~all

Then, in your zone for "yourisp.com" you create an SPF records like
clust01.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all
clust02.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all

This handles the "bounce message" scenario - which is arguably less important than the "main" domain SPF record.




Yes it is exactly what I understand with SPF !

So to conclude :

At least and the most important is this SPF template :

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:FQDN-of-the-node1.com a:FQDN-of-the-nodeX.com ~all



And this one in the FQDN zone (for all nodes like you described)
clust01.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all
clust02.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all




This SPF stuff can get complicated huh :)

Well my first understanding + your notes and explanations now allow me to be sure to understand what I plan to do :)


Thanks a ton Paul !!

Pascal

[pascal]

Hi

Questions about THEMES

Before v3 we had created 1 custom theme. All our siteworx accounts used this custom theme, called carat.

Today we have created 3 customs themes. One for us and 2 default for ALL our RESELERS (as example, one working with no link and another to allow them to custom this theme)

Our new theme has the exact same name than the old one created on v2, the one used by all Siteworx accounts.

In iworx.ini we have also updated the templates default to have this theme for the login page (nodeworx and siteworx)

Ok, Everything works fine. But :

If I connect under a siteworx account it is not our theme which is used but the default Interworx one. But if I look at the siteworx features I can see that IT IS the name of our theme which is choosed !

Of course if I validate the siteworx accounts, then reconnect to the siteworx account panel, then I have our theme !

So even if the siteworx accounts features shows our theme name, it looks like we have to validate every siteworx accounts to apply the update and so have our theme rather than the interworx one ?!?!

Is there a quick way to update ALL siteworx accounts under ONE theme ?

Thanks

Pascal

[R-n-R]

If the following has been asked please forgive me, I did not see it anywhere.

If a SiteWorx (3.0) account has a dedicated IP assigned to it, and the same SiteWorx account has, say two active secondary domains.

I take then the Secondary Domains will use the same dedicated IP address?

And I assume if someone wanted the Secondary domains to have their own decided IP address a NEW SiteWorx account would need to be created to for fill the request for dedicated IP address?

If the above is TRUE, what would be the best way to move a Secondary Domain to its own primary SiteWorx account?

[Henrik]

I don't know if this has been brought up; but can I run the same backup-script via cron as I do now?

Aka; will the backups be domain.com.date.tar.gz on a remote host without having to change the syntax of the backup-script being run now? (reading a config-file)

[pascal]

NOTE: ... We don't expect the offical release to be more than a week away from now. ....

Paul

Just to have some news as this post is 17 days old :D :D

Is there some problems with the final release ?

What about the Template question I've made ?
when final release will be out, will I have to update every accounts, even if the custom template has the exact same name in V2 and V3 ?

I just ask to allow us to plan an action when final release will be out :)

And, no and no, I don't ask when final release will be out :)

I 'd just like to know if everything is cool for you (iworx team) and goes well or if you have encountered little problems which might become more hard than supposed to be ! :p :(


Pascal

[IWorx-Paul]

No major problems Pascal, we're just finishing up the documentation for the new features, and have a couple small bugs to fix, and then we'll be good to go. We will give you a couple days notice before the release will be auto-updated.

Is there a quick way to update ALL siteworx accounts under ONE theme ?

The theme info is stored in the database now for each user, so there'll be an "easy" way, but it'll require running an SQL command to do it - I'll see about making at least a command line way to do this without having to do it 100% manually via SQL.

If the following has been asked please forgive me, I did not see it anywhere.

If a SiteWorx (3.0) account has a dedicated IP assigned to it, and the same SiteWorx account has, say two active secondary domains.

You won't be able to add secondary domains to accounts on a dedicated IP. That may change at some point, but that's how it works right now.

And I assume if someone wanted the Secondary domains to have their own decided IP address a NEW SiteWorx account would need to be created to for fill the request for dedicated IP address?
Yep, given that dedicated ips won't have secondary domains, a new siteworx account is indeed in order for these domains.

If the above is TRUE, what would be the best way to move a Secondary Domain to its own primary SiteWorx account?

Two options.
1) Do it manually.
2) Create a backup of the secondary domain (via command line only), delete the secondary domain, and then import the backup as a new SiteWorx account (again via command line only). This is considered "advanced" usage of the backup/restore system, and is a bit complex for a number of reasons, but we'll have documentation available for it soon.

Paul

[pascal]

No major problems Pascal, we're just finishing up the documentation for the new features, and have a couple small bugs to fix, and then we'll be good to go. We will give you a couple days notice before the release will be auto-updated.

Good to hear :)


The theme info is stored in the database now for each user, so there'll be an "easy" way, but it'll require running an SQL command to do it - I'll see about making at least a command line way to do this without having to do it 100% manually via SQL.

Ok, so in fact, as I enter this theme as default in iworx.ini it is shown in the siteworx features account, but as long as I don't "save" these feature the database isn't updated with this theme for these users ?

So, it means that, by default, in the database the them for users is the default interworx one ? right ?

Ok

Thanks Paul

[pascal]

Hi

Here is the last modified FR language for v3.0.1. We've made some little corrections

Pascal

[thinksmart12]

I just noticed that account backups from NodeWorx do not work in this version.

[IWorx-Socheat]

Can you be a little more descriptive about the problem? How are you initiating backups? What exactly isn't working?

[pascal]

I just noticed that account backups from NodeWorx do not work in this version.

On my server it works, both full and structure_only !

Pascal

[thinksmart12]

I login to Nodeworx using the master account, then go to Backup / Restore under the SiteWorx menu. I check all of the boxes for each domain, and it says that the backups were successfully initiated, but nothing happens after that. It still says "No Backups." I am choosing the option "Full Backup."

[IWorx-Socheat]

Do you have large accounts on the box? The backup command gets executed in the background, so if you have large accounts that are being backed up, the display may not reflect new backups immediately. Try reloading the page every few minutes or so, and they should start appearing. Otherwise, open a ticket, and we'll check it out.

Socheat

[thinksmart12]

Here's an update on the backup problem.

I chose to backup only one domain through SiteWorx, and elected to be sent an email with the status.

I received the email shortly after, telling me that it couldn't backup my Joomla! database.

Any ideas?

[IWorx-Socheat]

My guess would be one of the tables in the Joomla database is marked as crashed, or the table is corrupted. This would then cause the mysqldump portion of the backup to fail, thus aborting the backup process.

Try logging in to phpMyAdmin as the root user and view the status of the tables. It may show you that one of the tables is marked as crashed. Try repairing the tables, and then try backing up again.

If that doesn't work, open a ticket, and we'll check it out.

Socheat

[thinksmart12]

Hello,
There were some errors regarding Primary Keys and Indexes. I have already attempted to repair the tables, but it did not work. Is there some other way to fix these problems?

[IWorx-Socheat]

Can you post the exact error messages you saw here?

[thinksmart12]

Ok, an update on the MySQL backup. I ran a Check Table command, selecting all of the tables (545) through phpMyAdmin.

Here are the errors MySQL produced:

Problems with indexes of table `backup_wb_mod_smf_forum_messages` UNIQUE and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `ID_TOPIC`
More than one INDEX key was created for column `ID_MEMBER`
Problems with indexes of table `jos_categories` More than one INDEX key was created for column `section`
Problems with indexes of table `jos_core_acl_aro_groups` More than one INDEX key was created for column `parent_id`
Problems with indexes of table `jos_core_acl_aro_sections` More than one UNIQUE key was created for column `value`
More than one INDEX key was created for column `hidden`
Problems with indexes of table `llafj_categories` More than one INDEX key was created for column `section`
Problems with indexes of table `llafj_core_acl_aro_groups` More than one INDEX key was created for column `parent_id`
Problems with indexes of table `llafj_core_acl_aro_sections` More than one UNIQUE key was created for column `value`
More than one INDEX key was created for column `hidden`
Problems with indexes of table `metabb_attachments` More than one INDEX key was created for column `attach_id`
Problems with indexes of table `metabb_sessions` PRIMARY and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `session_id`
Problems with indexes of table `phpbb2_sessions` PRIMARY and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `session_id`
Problems with indexes of table `phpbb_sessions` PRIMARY and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `session_id`
Problems with indexes of table `smf_messages` UNIQUE and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `ID_TOPIC`
UNIQUE and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `ID_MEMBER`
More than one INDEX key was created for column `ID_MEMBER`
Problems with indexes of table `wb_mod_smf_forum_messages` UNIQUE and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `ID_TOPIC`
UNIQUE and INDEX keys should not both be set for column `ID_MEMBER`
More than one INDEX key was created for column `ID_MEMBER`

[IWorx-Socheat]

None of those messages should cause the backup to fail. Those are just warnings about your index choices. Open a ticket with your root login, nodeworx login, and the name of the domain you are having issues backing up, and we'll check it out.

Thanks,
Socheat

[thinksmart12]

Should I open a support ticket with my web host? Or you?

[IWorx-Socheat]

Since this is an RC version, open a ticket with us directly:
https://www.interworx.com/support/helpdesk/

[R-n-R]

I loaded 3.0-RC4 to one of my servers a few days ago and was curious in regards to one of the scripts in ScriptWorx, specifically Soholaunch.

Scriptworx is saying that there isn't any newer versions than what is showing, in reality the current stable is v4.9.1 r11 Scriptworx is showing 4.9 r54 (I believe without checking again)

Can someone confirm this is truly updating and why the difference of versions?

[EverythingWeb]

AFAIK, it's not checking 'directly' with the vendors, but rather with the Interworx server whether the packages that Iworx uses have been updated by Iworx themselves. So although the latest actual version is at r11, in reality the 'latest' version that interworx can see/knows of is r54 as that is what the interworx updates server has.

[IWorx-Socheat]

Yes, EverythingWeb is correct.

[R-n-R]

AFAIK, it's not checking 'directly' with the vendors, but rather with the Interworx server whether the packages that Iworx uses have been updated by Iworx themselves. So although the latest actual version is at r11, in reality the 'latest' version that interworx can see/knows of is r54 as that is what the interworx updates server has.

Hum, OK, so the InterWorx server is being check, no problem.

So that in itself brings up more questions.....

1) How often will the InterWorx server will be checking for updates?

2) Is the InterWorx server currently checking now? Or will the checks go into place once 3.0 stable is released?

[IWorx-Socheat]

Currently, all ScriptWorx installers are maintained by the InterWorx team. ScriptWorx installers consist of mainly two files: 1.) The script itself, in tar.gz or zip format and 2.) a ScriptWorx class file, that has the code for installing the script.

Whenever a new version to a script is released, we (the InterWorx staff) have to manually update the installer with the new version. We then upload the new ScriptWorx installer to the ScriptWorx updates server. Then, the next time your InterWorx server checks for updates, it will see the updated script.

Ideally, in the future, the original script maintainers will offer to maintain their own ScriptWorx installer and send them to us when complete. That way, updates are available as soon as they are finished. One person, or a small group of people, constantly watching for new updates to all the scripts and maintaining the installers for them, is less than ideal. :)

Socheat

[R-n-R]

Socheat, great explanation, thank you!

I personally add Soholaunch to sites on a regular basis, using their manual installer. Obviously using ScriptWorx to install would be even quicker and I like that, so is there anything I could do to help maintain that script, wouldn't mind doing it if that is the case, it would be a big help to me, hopefully others as well.

[Poooh]

Just for you to know, I've upgraded our main server to 3.01 RC4 and everything seems to be running fine...I'll give it a whirl and keep you updated!

Good job!

[bear]

Hi
all running ok no problems, when is this going to go to final.
thank you

[thinksmart12]

Hello,
It's probably too late to suggest this, but I would like to see some sort of Site Builder integrated with Interworx. Maybe a WYSIWYG editor, like cPanel. This would really give Interworx-CP an edge.

[bear]

Hi

i just tried to change keep alive option in Nodeworx/system service/webserver
it indecated that options where updated but that option did not change.

If i try and change any of the number values of any other option by them selfs they change/update no problem.
If you change the keep alive plus another option at the same time none are updated, so it seems to be the keepalive drop down option at fault.

Any ideas to fix ??

Thank you

[IWorx-Paul]

Hi Gary,

I've done some testing, and it looks like the correct values are getting set in the apache config file, and if you click on the "Web Server" menu link, you'll see the values you set are correct. The problem is with what is displayed in the control panel right after you ciick "Update".

We'll be sure to get this fixed, if you'd like me to patch your server just open a support ticket.

Paul

[bear]

Hi

yes i did some checking earier to day and it does set the apache config ok, your right its just whats shown in the control panel.
Wont worry about a patch i can wait for that fix on the final, but thank you for the offer.
cheers

[peterz]

Not sure if this is a R4 issue but several of my logs are not writing consistently. Specifically the apache logs for user accounts. There are several others but don't want to make this too complex yet. This appears to be some issue with the load balancer as when I disable load balancing, the logs start writing again.

[IWorx-Socheat]

Logging works a little differently in a clustered setup, so are you sure you're checking all the logs? In a clustered setup, only the CM writes to /home/username/var/domain.com/logs.

The nodes write to /var/log/interworx/domain.com/logs which is local to that node. The CM mounts via NFS each nodes /var/log/interworx to /var/log/interworx/IP_OF_NODE. When stats are processed on a cluster, the logs from all the nodes are merged with the CM before they're processed.

[peterz]

Logging works a little differently in a clustered setup

Thanks, that was it.

[pascal]

Not sure if this is a R4 issue but several of my logs are not writing consistently. Specifically the apache logs for user accounts. There are several others but don't want to make this too complex yet. This appears to be some issue with the load balancer as when I disable load balancing, the logs start writing again.

Hi peterz !

Are you sure the log dir on nodes are mounted with NFS on the cluster manager ?

With a cluster the nodes write logs in /var/log/interworx/domain.com/logs and this is mouted on the cluster manager in /var/log/interworx/ip_of_the_node/

Maybe the nfs mount point is not mounted ! I'd look this first

Pascal

[pascal]

Logging works a little differently in a clustered setup, so are you sure you're checking all the logs? In a clustered setup, only the CM writes to /home/username/var/domain.com/logs.

The nodes write to /var/log/interworx/domain.com/logs which is local to that node. The CM mounts via NFS each nodes /var/log/interworx to /var/log/interworx/IP_OF_NODE. When stats are processed on a cluster, the logs from all the nodes are merged with the CM before they're processed.

Arfff sorry Socheat I didn't see your answer !!!

I have answered from my mail directly and didn't look at existing anwsers as it was my last mail !

PAscal

[tiger]

Arfff sorry Socheat I didn't see your answer !!!

I have answered from my mail directly and didn't look at existing anwsers as it was my last mail !

PAscal

So, is it possible (for non-admins) to post to a thread just by replying to an email?

[pascal]

So, is it possible (for non-admins) to post to a thread just by replying to an email?

No !

I explain badly, sorry

I have seen the question in my mail and clicked on the link in the mail message without looked if there was some answers before writing my answers

Then when I posted the answer and the browser show it, I have seen that there was the sokcheat answer !

Sorry for this ;)

for moderators : feel free to delete it of course

Pascal

[WebXtrA]

I believe I've found a bug with Scriptworx, for now it seems that with eGroupware and Joomla! the password and/or user name for the scripts doesn't get installed properly. People can't log in with the given password during the install.

[bear]

in nodworx/Scriptworx/overview i am showing 2 installations of scripts
Coppermine and gallery but the files from domain/html/ have been removed only the sql databases remain.
The reference to the scripts show in nodworx/Scriptworx/overview the script installations and there relative paths to the files, but there are no files there, they have been removed.

[IWorx-Paul]

Hi Bear,

Were the scriptworx installs deleted using the script deletion part of scriptworx (in siteworx)? Or were the files just deleted?

[bear]

i have just checked with the account user and the files were removed only using ftp and have not used the delete option in script works.
That explains why there still showing in nodeworx.

thanks for your reply

[Sander]

What will be the OS support list for this new release?

And is it necessary to have an additional license to test this new release on a seperate machine?

When I review the list of features for this new version, i'm not too pleased, many of the promised features for clustering are not implemented...

[IWorx-Paul]

At release time the OS support list will be the same as for 2.x. CentOS 5 support will be added shortly after the 3.0 release.

If you don't want to upgrade an existing server with a license, then yes, a new license is neccessary.

Sorry you're not pleased. A lot of "behind the scenes" work went into improving clustering to prepare for features like high availability (I assume that's what you're talking about), but it's not available at this time.

Paul

[Justec]

CentOS 5 support will be added shortly after the 3.0 release.Nice...
I have an extra linux test server ready to help test if needed. I currently have CentOS 5.0 installed on it, but can do a clean install.

[IWorx-Paul]

We have an official final release date.

InterWorx 3.0 will be released and begin auto-updating on Monday, June 18th.

Paul

[Henrik]

Now THAT is GREAT news!!!!!! :)

[Justec]

Now THAT is GREAT news!!!!!! :)

I agree. Great work guys!

I purpose no support tickets Monday night so the Iworx guys can go grab a beer and relax :)

Well I guess just emergency support tickets and socheat can answer them from his cell phone or something :D

[cabizeid]

When will we see these features?

- automatic backup (on/off server)
- apache/php upgrade area via Nodeworx
- roundcube webmail possibly? (Very neat)

[IWorx-Paul]

When will we see these features?

- automatic backup (on/off server)
- apache/php upgrade area via Nodeworx
- roundcube webmail possibly? (Very neat)

What does "automatic backup (on/off server)" mean exactly?

If Apache/php upgrade area via NodeWorx is added, it'll still be a while, because this is a large undertaking to build support for multiple versions of php, apache for multiple distros. And how about MySQL while we're at it.

We've been following roundcube development, and while I agree it's neat, we're really just waiting for an "official" final release version to possibly integrate it as a webmail option. From what I've read it's still in flux to some degree.

[EverythingWeb]

I wont say who, but I do know of quite a large shared hosting company who disabled Roundcube on their Cpanel servers for 'security reasons'. I suppose that's always the risk of using none-final software in production environments.

[WebXtrA]

What I see a lot of times is that with the backups empty database backups are created. Is this a confirmed bug?

[thinksmart12]

WebXtrA, I have been getting that same problem. I believe that it has to do with the corruption of some of the database tables, as my Joomla! database did not back up.

[IWorx-Socheat]

What I see a lot of times is that with the backups empty database backups are created. Is this a confirmed bug?

Hi WebXtra,

As Thinksmart12 mentioned, we've seen this happen when databases are corrupt or crashed without being repaired, causing the mysqldump to abort or do "weird" things. Open a ticket and we can definitely check it out.

Thanks,
Socheat

[WebXtrA]

Ok I will open a ticket, as soon as I find an account where this happens.