Jump to content



Photo

VMware Player 5 & Debian 7 NGINX

Answered Go to the full post vmware virtualbox debian 7 nginx vmware player webserver

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Class

Class

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-August 05
  • Location: Hungary

Posted 25 February 2014 - 13:48

Hello!

 

I would like ask, since I'm pretty unfamiliar with the VMware Player 5. I just injected a virtual machine (.vmdk), with Debian 7 & NGINX, PHP and fastCGI running on it. I want to test out some websites, etc on this virtual server. Currently I have it bridged to the host, and my question is how can I access pages served by this virtual web server on the host (Win7)?

 

I think the main problem is that I don't know VMware works. Is there any settings, config which I missed?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

PS: at the moment of screenshot ETH was turned of, due to I know know, NAT or bridges is the proper solution.

Attached Images

  • ifconfig.png


Best Answer ichi , 26 February 2014 - 10:31

Ah, so bridged is the answer. But sadly my network does not allow bridged VM-s, so this not possible. Sadly, while I messed around yesterday I somehow figured this out, coz with bridged I get dropped from my network. :(

 

BTW - I'm not using VMware Player that often to be honest, so yeah, installed it more then 1 years ago, then 5 was the newest version, and since the update function is blocked by my proxy service. But to be asking the right questions: Is 6 better then 5?

 

If you can't use bridged (or even NAT) and also you only need to access the VM from the host machine, then setting it as host-only will do. You'll be able to connect to the VM through the private network.

 

VMware Player 6 is obviously better... it has a "6" on the box  :D well it actually has better support for newer OS versions and hardware, and some extra features and performance improvements.

You might not notice any of that but it certainly isn't worse than 5 anyway, and being free it doesn't hurt to upgrade.

Go to the full post



#2 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 96
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 25 February 2014 - 16:39

If it was bridged to your host then your VM network interface should have an IP on your hosts network.. From what you show there is no IP address on the VMs eth0 - so no your not going to be able to access anything on that vm over a network.

 

BTW - something I never understand why would you be using player 5 - 6 has been out for quite some time.  Its not like it not free and you don't want to pay for the upgrade ;)



#3 OP Class

Class

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-August 05
  • Location: Hungary

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:09

If it was bridged to your host then your VM network interface should have an IP on your hosts network.. From what you show there is no IP address on the VMs eth0 - so no your not going to be able to access anything on that vm over a network.

 

BTW - something I never understand why would you be using player 5 - 6 has been out for quite some time.  Its not like it not free and you don't want to pay for the upgrade ;)

 

Ah, so bridged is the answer. But sadly my network does not allow bridged VM-s, so this not possible. Sadly, while I messed around yesterday I somehow figured this out, coz with bridged I get dropped from my network. :(

 

BTW - I'm not using VMware Player that often to be honest, so yeah, installed it more then 1 years ago, then 5 was the newest version, and since the update function is blocked by my proxy service. But to be asking the right questions: Is 6 better then 5?



#4 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:31   Best Answer

Ah, so bridged is the answer. But sadly my network does not allow bridged VM-s, so this not possible. Sadly, while I messed around yesterday I somehow figured this out, coz with bridged I get dropped from my network. :(

 

BTW - I'm not using VMware Player that often to be honest, so yeah, installed it more then 1 years ago, then 5 was the newest version, and since the update function is blocked by my proxy service. But to be asking the right questions: Is 6 better then 5?

 

If you can't use bridged (or even NAT) and also you only need to access the VM from the host machine, then setting it as host-only will do. You'll be able to connect to the VM through the private network.

 

VMware Player 6 is obviously better... it has a "6" on the box  :D well it actually has better support for newer OS versions and hardware, and some extra features and performance improvements.

You might not notice any of that but it certainly isn't worse than 5 anyway, and being free it doesn't hurt to upgrade.



#5 OP Class

Class

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-August 05
  • Location: Hungary

Posted 26 February 2014 - 12:08

If you can't use bridged (or even NAT) and also you only need to access the VM from the host machine, then setting it as host-only will do. You'll be able to connect to the VM through the private network.

 

VMware Player 6 is obviously better... it has a "6" on the box  :D well it actually has better support for newer OS versions and hardware, and some extra features and performance improvements.

You might not notice any of that but it certainly isn't worse than 5 anyway, and being free it doesn't hurt to upgrade.

 

Well, upgrade has to wait.

 

So, I started the host only connection, but, since obviously 192.168.xxx.yyy that was choosen by default wasn't really the right IP since there is actually a PC in my host network that runs with that. So now I tried to choose and IP address that is most likely not in my network and is fairly extreme: 1.1.1.1

 

Can I access this VM address in a browser, without interrupting my real networks connectivity?

Attached Images

  • ifconfig.png


#6 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 96
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 26 February 2014 - 12:43

"Ah, so bridged is the answer. But sadly my network does not allow bridged VM-s"

 

And what network is that??  That makes Zero sense - its your machine right, how is it not your network?  Are you at a school or something?

 

Installed a Year ago and your just now trying to use a vm on it?



#7 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 26 February 2014 - 19:34

Well, upgrade has to wait.

 

So, I started the host only connection, but, since obviously 192.168.xxx.yyy that was choosen by default wasn't really the right IP since there is actually a PC in my host network that runs with that. So now I tried to choose and IP address that is most likely not in my network and is fairly extreme: 1.1.1.1

 

Can I access this VM address in a browser, without interrupting my real networks connectivity?

 

192.168.x.x not being the right IP is not obvious at all, that depends on your network's mask. 

Your network is probably 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x with a 255.255.255.0 netmask, while the VM should have a 192.168.122.x IP (or similar).

 

Check you host's network configuration, you should have at least one virtual adapter there (likely vmnet0) with an assigned IP address. If you configure your VM's network adapter as NAT or host-only it should have an IP address in the same network as the host's vmnetx.

 

If VMware is assigning IPs in the range of your actual network to the virtual adapters then something's wrong with your VMware Player install.