Damian Menscher menscher@uiuc.edu@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
Can you ping the server? What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.
On Thursday 08 April 2004 01:05 pm, Fulko.Hew@sita.aero wrote:
Damian Menscher menscher@uiuc.edu@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
Can you ping the server? What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.
Ditto here. These boxes exporting nfs dirs are not firewalled and have no access restrictions for other clients in the network. They work fine for all clients except for the one running FC2. I can reboot the FC2 box into Debian and it mounts the directories as expected. I seriously doubt that the nfs servers are at fault.
Jeff Elkins
On Thursday 08 April 2004 03:39 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2004 01:05 pm, Fulko.Hew@sita.aero wrote:
Damian Menscher menscher@uiuc.edu@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
Can you ping the server? What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.
Ditto here. These boxes exporting nfs dirs are not firewalled and have no access restrictions for other clients in the network. They work fine for all clients except for the one running FC2. I can reboot the FC2 box into Debian and it mounts the directories as expected. I seriously doubt that the nfs servers are at fault.
Jeff Elkins
I must say that I'm surprised that an FC2 NFS failure isn't getting much play on this list. For me, reliable NFS is a absolute requirement. I can understand that a "typical" single-box user could care less, but surely some folks out there must depend on reliable networking.
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully?
Jeff Elkins
jeffelkins@earthlink.net (Jeff Elkins) writes:
I must say that I'm surprised that an FC2 NFS failure isn't getting much play on this list. For me, reliable NFS is a absolute requirement. I can understand that a "typical" single-box user could care less, but surely some folks out there must depend on reliable networking.
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully?
What if you try in permissive mode? I had troubles nfs mounting my mail directory and couldn't get autofs to work at all...
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 09:27:55PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I must say that I'm surprised that an FC2 NFS failure isn't getting much play on this list. For me, reliable NFS is a absolute requirement. I can understand that a "typical" single-box user could care less, but surely some folks out there must depend on reliable networking.
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully? Jeff Elkins
Yes. It took a bugzilla report, but the current policy setup allows me to share via NFS on the local lan with the eth0 interface in trusted mode.
* Jeff Elkins (jeffelkins@earthlink.net) [040409 06:50]:
From: Jeff Elkins jeffelkins@earthlink.net Organization: Elkins.org To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:27:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 Message-Id: 200404082127.55926.jeffelkins@earthlink.net Subject: Re: NFS failure Reply-To: jeffelkins@earthlink.net, For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com
On Thursday 08 April 2004 03:39 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2004 01:05 pm, Fulko.Hew@sita.aero wrote:
Damian Menscher menscher@uiuc.edu@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
Can you ping the server? What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.
Ditto here. These boxes exporting nfs dirs are not firewalled and have no access restrictions for other clients in the network. They work fine for all clients except for the one running FC2. I can reboot the FC2 box into Debian and it mounts the directories as expected. I seriously doubt that the nfs servers are at fault.
Jeff Elkins
I must say that I'm surprised that an FC2 NFS failure isn't getting much play on this list. For me, reliable NFS is a absolute requirement. I can understand that a "typical" single-box user could care less, but surely some folks out there must depend on reliable networking.
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully?
Jeff Elkins
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
I'm mounting via NFS a directory on a RH9 server read only with no problems, and a directory on a FreeBSD-Current server read write with no problems.
On Friday 09 April 2004 11:07 am, Steffan Henke wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully?
Yes, the only thing is the message about mount being older than kernel version, but I have several dirs mounted on an FC2 T2 box from an FC1 server w/o problems. But I should mention I don't use selinux.
Regards,
Steffan
I installed w/o selinux, or at least I thought I did.
Jeff
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 09:33:43PM -0400, netopml@newview.com wrote:
What if you try in permissive mode? I had troubles nfs mounting my mail directory and couldn't get autofs to work at all...
I also had my share of trouble with autofs, but got it working. I just managed to get the time to file the bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
Have fun.
Carlos
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
Are any folks on this list using FC2 and NFS successfully?
Yes, the only thing is the message about mount being older than kernel version, but I have several dirs mounted on an FC2 T2 box from an FC1 server w/o problems. But I should mention I don't use selinux.
Regards,
Steffan
-
Carlos Villegas -
Derek Tattersall -
Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero -
G.Wolfe Woodbury -
Jeff Elkins -
netopml＠newview.com -
Steffan Henke