I am getting this error:
Connection Lost. Make sure that Qlik Sense is running properly. If your session has timed out due to inactivity, refresh to continue working.
Refresh just gets me the same error. I have checked all the logs, and none seem to be getting updated. logging is all on debug.
The port 4747 seems to be working ok. There are only three entries for it when I run netstat -a -p -tcp
TCP 0.0.0.0:4747 qlikserver1:0 LISTENING
...
TCP 10.0.101.164:4747 qlikserver1:49316 ESTABLISHED
...
TCP 10.0.101.164:49316 qlikserver1:4747 ESTABLISHED
I ended up figuring out this obscure message.
I set up the ldap properly in user directory connectors. This required unchecking a strange textbox and only then did the Sync button work.
Then, I set up a token for my ldap user, and he could log in.
Related
I have an application with a server written in F# and serve web files using suave. I remote login using powershell into another machine in the network to run the application (The application is also in one of the network drives). I do that because that machine have access to third party APIs needed for the server. Now when I do [IPAddress_Of_Remote_Machine]/[html_file] or [name_of_pc]/[html_file] then chrome is waiting forever and doesn't ever return the webpage. This wasn't happening before and I ran into this problem recently. I opened a different port and used it instead of the default one 80. This made things work but the problem keeps showing up after a couple of days. I don't think it's a firewall issue but I'm clueless to why this is happening.
When running netstat -an, this is what I get (I hid the IP address):
As you can see all of the connections are either in CLOSE_WAIT or ESTABLISHED but not LISTENING. All of these TCP connections is probably because I have PhantomJS and two other APIs running in the application as well. However the loop back address is also open on the same port 5959:
I'm not sure what is difference between these two but when using PortQryUI to query the remote server it returns a success!
I have already made an inbound rule for port 5959 on the server so it should be allowed. The web page is stuck at Waiting for [name_of_pc]. Also, sometimes this problem disappears and everything works fine.
What is the potential problem behind this? Why would this happen all of a sudden?
UPDATE:
I re-ran the application today and it's working correctly. It could be that something is dynamically set within the firewall? Not really sure what is going on. The machine I'm running the server on has a bunch of applications running on it as well so maybe there is an external process that is affecting it?
I made a hello world app with Suave and deployed it on the network drive to test if it's going to work. I opened inbound rule for port 6001
Then I ran the app:
However, it's still not working and this time it says the site cannot be reached when I do: http://[name_of_pc]:6001.
Moving this to an answer so that it can be closed:
Could you post the bindings section of your suave cfg? I'm guessing you know where that is since you are using a non-standard port but if you need don't, search for HttpBinding. I suspect you will find it pointing to 127.0.0.1 which is not good enough for remote access. You could try changing it to 0.0.0.0 or to the server's actual IP address. I would try 0.0.0.0 first for the flexibility it provides
I set variables host and port instead of setting the 'address' variable tuple in socket.py. I was unable to get 'address' as a tuple to work. I do not believe this is the issue, but I thought I should state this up front.
FYI, my goal is an integrations project, and I believe I isolated socket.py as the problematic code. socket.py is not creating a listener on the remote server. I run the python script on my client, and my server address is 192.168.1.130 port 7879.
I think socket.py is the problem, because I do not receive the expected print statements back through the console that socket.py is attempting to create a socket. In addition, I can RDC to the server, disable ufw (yes I know this is a bad idea), create a tcp listener, push data through the client socket to the server socket, and verify this with netcat.
Am I mistaken that I should be able to parameterize socket.py with nothing more than a host and port and be able to create a socket connection? I am happy to provide more detail from logs, but I thought I should start with a very high level overview.
Answer: More investigation needed. I think socket.py does not create the remote connection with socket(),bind(),listen() statements; instead simply looks for a listener on the remote server with a connect() statement. This is entirely my misunderstanding given I did not dive into the details of the socket.py code. I figured this out because the service running on the remote server creates the listener, but the service itself on the remote server is what is not properly starting.
I am facing an issue with tcp connection..
I have a number of clients connected to the a remote server over tcp .
Now,If due to any issue i am not able to reach my server , after the successful establishment of the tcp connection , i do not receive any error on the client side .
On client end if i do netstat , it shows me that clients are connected the remote server , even though i am not able to ping the server.
So,now i am in the case where the server shows it is not connected to any client and on another end the client shows it is connected the server.
I have tested this for websocket also with node.js , but the same behavior persists over there also .
I have tried to google it around , but no luck .
Is there any standard solution for that ?
This is by design.
If two endpoints have a successful socket (TCP) connection between each other, but aren't sending any data, then the TCP state machines on both endpoints remains in the CONNECTED state.
Imagine if you had a shell connection open in a terminal window on your PC at work to a remote Unix machine across the Internet. You leave work that evening with the terminal window still logged in and at the shell prompt on the remote server.
Overnight, some router in between your PC and the remote computer goes out. Hours later, the router is fixed. You come into work the next day and start typing at the shell prompt. It's like the loss of connectivity never happened. How is this possible? Because neither socket on either endpoint had anything to send during the outage. Given that, there was no way that the TCP state machine was going to detect a connectivity failure - because no traffic was actually occurring. Now if you had tried to type something at the prompt during the outage, then the socket connection would eventually time out within a minute or two, and the terminal session would end.
One workaround is to to enable the SO_KEEPALIVE option on your socket. YMMV with this socket option - as this mode of TCP does not always send keep-alive messages at a rate in which you control.
A more common approach is to just have your socket send data periodically. Some protocols on top of TCP that I've worked with have their own notion of a "ping" message for this very purpose. That is, the client sends a "ping" message over the TCP socket every minute and the server responds back with "pong" or some equivalent. If neither side gets the expected ping/pong message within N minutes, then the connection, regardless of socket error state, is assumed to be dead. This approach of sending periodic messages also helps with NATs that tend to drop TCP connections for very quiet protocols when it doesn't observe traffic over a period of time.
I establish a TCP connection between my server and client which runs on the same host. We gather and read from the server or say source in our case continuously.
We read data on say 3 different ports.
Once the source stops publishing data or gets restarted , the server/source is not able to publish data again on the same port saying port is already bind. The reason given is that client still has established connection on those ports.
I wanted to know what could be the probable reasons of this ? Can there be issue since client is already listening on these ports and trying to reconnect again and again because we try this reconnection mechanism. I am more looking for reason on source side as the same code in client sides when source and client are on different host and not the same host works perfectly fine for us.
Edit:-
I found this while going through various article .
On the question of using SO_LINGER to send a RST on close to avoid the TIME_WAIT state: I've been having some problems with router access servers (names withheld to protect the guilty) that have problems dealing with back-to-back connections on a modem dedicated to a specific channel. What they do is let go of the connection, accept another call, attempt to connect to a well-known socket on a host, and the host refuses the connection because there is a connection in TIME_WAIT state involving the well-known socket. (Stevens' book TCP Illustrated, Vol 1 discusses this problem in more detail.) In order to avoid the connection-refused problem, I've had to install an option to do reset-on-close in the server when the server initiates the disconnection.
Link to source:- http://developerweb.net/viewtopic.php?id=2941
I guess i am facing the same problem: 'attempt to connect to a well-known socket on a host, and the host refuses the connection'. Probable fix mention is 'option to do reset-on-close in the server when the server initiates the disconnection'. Now how do I do that ?
Set the SO_REUSEADDR option on the server socket before you bind it and call listen().
EDIT The suggestion to fiddle around with SO_LINGER option is worthless and dangerous to your data in flight. Just use SO_RESUSEADDR.
You need to close the socket bound to that port before you restart/shutdown the server!
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Closing-a-Socket.html
Also, there's a timeout time, which I think is 4 minutes, so if you created a TCP socket and close it, you may still have to wait 4 minutes until it closes.
You can use netstat to see all the bound ports on your system. If you shut down your server, or close your server after forking on connect, you may have zombie processes which are bound to certain ports that do not close and remain active, and thus, you can't rebind to the same port. Show some code.
All connection attempts on RhodeCode on CentOS 6.3 are refused except from localhost.
Note that iptables is not running, and I am only trying to visit the web interface.
I have googled the exact error message below and looked around SO. I have yet to find a solution.
abort: error: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it
If the firewall is down, and I am not trying to modify any repository, what else is preventing me from connecting? EDIT: See #5 below. Not sure how to address it yet.
Things tried and other info
Using localhost, 127.0.0.1 and hostname in production.ini
service iptables stop
Connected over HTTP successfully. In other words, connections are accepted outside RhodeCode.
Made sure no authentication methods were enabled or configured in production.ini
Although the server accepts connections on localhost, netstat -l does not show that port 5000 is listening. Port 5000 is set in production.ini and ps uax | grep paster confirms the server is running. No other software tries to grab port 5000.
Ok, apparently I have been misunderstanding the host configuration. I was running on the assumption that host should be set to 127.0.0.1 or localhost in production.ini for RhodeCode to know what host to look for for another service. This was a faulty presumption on my part, since I am used to pointing web applications to local systems to look for databases.
It turns out that host binds the application to a specific address for access, meaning that it RhodeCode was supposed to only respond to local requests, regardless of what other system policies say. The setup docs did not make this clear because it did not specify that external connections would be refused. All it said was:
This command [paster serve] runs the RhodeCode server. The web app should be available at the 127.0.0.1:5000. This ip and port is configurable via the production.ini file created in previous step
The problem was fixed by binding RhodeCode to 0.0.0.0, which opened it to outside connections. Kudos to Łukasz Balcerzak for pointing this out in the RC support google group.