Different URLs for Virtual Server

Different URLs for Virtual Server

  • Comments 5

People often ask why they are prompted for user credentials when launching the Virtual Server Administration web page on their local computer.  The reason for this is that by default we use a URL with the fully qualified domain name (FQDN - e.g. http://benscomputer.domain.com).  When we use this form of URL the result is that Internet Explorer does not believe it is a local website.  If you continue to use the FQDN address you can get rid of the prompt by adding the address to your trusted sites.

Now - you may be asking why we use the FQDN form of the URL.  Well - there are actually four different forms that could be used:

While we were developing Virtual Server we actually tested out all the above options - and each one had its own set of problems and edge cases where it wouldn't work quite right.  Using the FQDN was the most reliable - but if you ever have problems you might want to try out the other options.

Cheers,
Ben

Leave a Comment
  • Please add 3 and 6 and type the answer here:
  • Post
  • Why doesn't Virtual Server setup also set VSWebApp.exe as the default document for the /VirtualServer directory?  I find it cumbersome to have to type out the whole URL when I am logging in to the admin site from a new box.  It would be super useful to be able to just type //bigserver/VirtualServer to get to the admin site.
  • This can definitely be confusing and irritating, especially when you use a non-Microsoft browser.  The thing I don't understand is why there isn't a non-web based console.  You know, MMC being the fad happening at Microsoft, I would have thought that we would have seen something along the lines of a console.  An interface that is browser independent or non-web based all together would be great because we wouldn’t need to be concerned with whether we like IE, Firefox, Netscape or <put your browser here>.  Plus, then we could possibly get away from having to run, troubleshoot, maintain, harden or in general deal with IIS.  What happens if your web server has a problem, do you at that point just wish you could manage your servers?

    It would seem that this could work out well for everyone even if the console was only local (like VPC) and we had to use remote desktop to get to it.  RDP would actually be beneficial or preferable in many instances because you can control encryption for RDP without the need for an SSL cert.  Plus, I know I am going to be running remote desktop even if I’m running IIS so, it wouldn’t be like running terminal services is going to add to the consumption of system resources.  Not to mention, we could use the resources IIS is using for VMs instead of running a web server.  The web interface, ***as an option***, might be very useful for an enterprise or service provider that wanted to be able to manage services over the public Internet.  But, in my case, IIS just seems to be adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to something that could be managed with an mmc.  Just my two cents.

    Thanks,

    Jerry Schliephake
  • I totaly agree with Jerrry.
  • Brad -

    This is a good point

    Jerry -

    Yes, we have heard a lot of feedback about this and are keeping it in mind for future versions.

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • Technically to be a FQDN the domain name really needs to end with a period.  Otherwise, "benscomputer.domain.com" could be "benscomputer.domain.com." or something else like "benscomputer.domain.com.microsoft.com."

    I actually ran into this problem in college, as the name and subdomain of a common server for students happened to match a TLD.
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)