-- This is a re-post because I only got one reply.  It was suggested that
I use Samba instead of NFS mounts.  I agree Samba is easier, but for 
educational purposes, I need to determine if I can get NFS mounts to 
work using MOUNTD.  Also, I posted the request over the long weekend when
most of the Linux Gurus were likely away --

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     Anyone have any thoughts on this one?  It's a bit long winded,
but I want to give all the details so anyone who has seen this before
may pick up on what I've missed. 

   I'm trying to get Linux (RH 5.0) to export a directory to an NT 
or 95 system.  I've done this hundreds of times at work . . . however,
I was always on the PC/NT end.  Our Unix sysadmins always set up the 
NFS exports and I did the PC end.  All I ever knew was I had to provide
them with the IP number of the PC and the directory path on the Unix
box and somehow they magically exported it.

    Then I set up a Linux system at home here and I'm trying to get the 
same thing working.  Here's what I get as an error on NT, using FTP
Software's ON-NET32 Interdrive client:

"An error occurred in the network provider Interdrive NT.  1208: The 
PCNFSD is not accessable on the remote server.  Contact your system 
administrator (or try logging in as user name NOBODY.)"

    I tried NOBODY . . . no luck.  I'm pretty sure I have the NT side 
of things configured correctly.  It's something I've done from DOS/WIN-
311/95/NT over the years and it always works.  The NFS share shows up 
under the correct NFS server (my Linux system) when you try to map a 
network drive on the NT system, so it appears to be a permissions problem.
I use the correct name and password for /home/pdunphy . . . even tried 
root and the root password.  No luck.  Always the same error.

    Being new to the Unix side, I assume I've got something wrong 
there.  Here's what I did:

Edited /etc/exports so that it contains the following line only

/home/pdunphy         10.0.0.1(rw,no_root_squash)


    Then I stopped and started the MOUNTD and NFS services as 
follows:

/etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs start
  
Running rpcinfo -p gives the following:

   program vers proto   port
    100000    2   tcp    111 rpcbind
    100000    2   udp    111 rpcbind
    100005    1   udp    635 mountd
    100005    2   udp    635 mountd
    100005    1   tcp    635 mountd
    100005    2   tcp    635 mountd
    100003    2   udp   2049 nfs
    100003    2   tcp   2049 nfs



    This tells me the mountd and nfs services are running, but I'm curious
why there are four instances of mountd reported . . . all the documentation
and HOWTOs I could find indicated two of mountd and two for nfs.  Is this 
the problem?  If so, how does one fix it?

    There is one other thing that I found strange.  I ran glint and looked
at the networking packages, specifically the nfs-server daemon.  When you
do a verify, it reports it as nfs-server:2.2beta29:2 and all is ok except
the /etc/exports file indicates a checksum,size,time problem.  When I look
at the details of this, it says that it expects to see the one created
today (gives the right date, etc.) but says the current one is date 
Thu Oct 30 12:33:07 1997 (presumably this is the default one from the
/mnt/cdrom/RedHat/RPMS.)  I tried uninstalling and reinstalling this, 
deleting the /etc/exports file and re-creating it, etc.  Always the same
message.  Expects the new one you've created, but seems to get the default
as the current.  This may not be important as I've changed the contents
of /etc/exports and the NT system sees the actual directories I put in the
file . . . and when I change them, NT sees the changes.  This leads me to
believe that nfs and mountd are really processing the right file.

    Any thoughts on all this would be appreciated.

Regards, Paul


-- 
  PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
         To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 
                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

Reply via email to