Hi,
It works here for both cases. I've done intensive testing,
and I just cannot reproduce this bug.
The list here just looks normal as it should be:
localhost:/ on /a/localhost (nfs, nodev, nosuid)
127.0.0.1:/ on /a/127.0.0.1 (nfs, nodev, nosuid)
levais:/ on /a/levais (nfs, nodev, nosuid)
leva
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:24:49 +0100,
Michael Nottebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry to have to bother you further, but this patch does not solve the
> problem completely. Amd works partially now, but I still get 'mountd rpc
> failed: RPC: Unable to receive' errors when I try to access
Am Dienstag, 28. Januar 2003 21:52 schrieb Martin Blapp:
> Hi,
>
> > Can this please be committed to or at least prepared as a patch for
> > RELENG_5_0? I myself consider fixing automount access to 5.0-RELEASE nfs
>
> Feel free to add this patch:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mbr/patches/committed
Martin Blapp wrote:
Hi,
Can this please be committed to or at least prepared as a patch for
RELENG_5_0? I myself consider fixing automount access to 5.0-RELEASE nfs
Feel free to add this patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mbr/patches/committed/patch-rpc_oldreply.diff
Ah, thank you ever so
Hi,
> Can this please be committed to or at least prepared as a patch for
> RELENG_5_0? I myself consider fixing automount access to 5.0-RELEASE nfs
Feel free to add this patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mbr/patches/committed/patch-rpc_oldreply.diff
> servers a critical bugfix, but should RE'
Can this please be committed to or at least prepared as a patch for
RELENG_5_0? I myself consider fixing automount access to 5.0-RELEASE nfs
servers a critical bugfix, but should RE's mileage vary, I'd really like
a patch that I can apply on my server. There is also a PR open about
this which c
Hi all,
We can end this tread. The bug has been found and fixed
in HEAD.
Martin
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Hi,
> s->c MOUNT V1 EXPORT Reply (duplicate)
I suspect timeouts or packet loss cause this together with
the new nonblock code change.
I just tried V2 (mountd -2) and amd with -2 option. The
bug does not appear.
If possible I'd like to reproduce packet loss with dummynet,
has anyone the necessa
At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:58:34 +0100 (CET),
Martin Blapp wrote:
> Can you try to cvsup on both boxes and then manually rebuild
> libc, mountd, rpcbind, nfsd.
Hmm, 5.0-RELEASE box is difficult to upgrade to HEAD.
I'll try to update my box to the latest of HEAD tomorrow.
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PR
Hi,
> In my environment, server is 5.0-RELEASE and client is HEAD as of Jan
> 20th. Both have nfsd, rpc.lockd, rpc.statd and nfs client.
Just tried to reproduce it again.
I'm not able to reproduce it :-(
Can you try to cvsup on both boxes and then manually rebuild
libc, mountd, rpcbind, nfsd.
At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:21:54 +0100 (CET),
Martin Blapp wrote:
> There seem to be definitly a problem around. Can you exactly tell
> me how you can reproduce it ?
Hmm, sorry for my little description.
> I tried it too and amd still works. I use on both servers a recent
> CURRENT and one has amd ru
Hi,
> I don't know the problem is in amd or mountd. I fear other programs
> are broken with this commit...
Mounting nfs volumes manually works, as other services work fine.
I also tested other rpc-service and they seem to be fine. So we
have to find out why mountd replies twice.
With the commi
Hi,
> So, problem may be in mountd. I tested with reverting the commit at
> 2003/01/15, and it works fine.
There seem to be definitly a problem around. Can you exactly tell
me how you can reproduce it ?
I tried it too and amd still works. I use on both servers a recent
CURRENT and one has amd
At Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:29:16 + (UTC),
Masafumi NAKANE wrote:
> Well, not so quick. I took another -CURRENT box and the problem was
> not reproduceable on this box. I can't quite figure out what the
> differences between these two boxes are, though.
I think I found the solution.
On HEAD and
Masafumi NAKANE wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:40 +0100,
> Michael Nottebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Yes, that's exactly what I'm experiencing here... uhoh. First
>>errata-topic discovered 2 hours after the release? :}
>
>
> Well, not so quick. I took another -CURRENT box and the probl
Masafumi NAKANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been encountering the exact same problem past a few days. My
> -CURRENT box is -CURRENT as of 01/18.
I have the same behaviour here.
Additionnal tests show that a Linux client running am-utils (6.0.7)
also hangs (same error message) when trying
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:40 +0100,
Michael Nottebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm experiencing here... uhoh. First
> errata-topic discovered 2 hours after the release? :}
Well, not so quick. I took another -CURRENT box and the problem was
not reproduceable on this b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Masafumi NAKANE wrote:
| I've been encountering the exact same problem past a few days. My
| -CURRENT box is -CURRENT as of 01/18.
|
| Another thing is that, I can mount filesystems via NFS from a -CURRENT
| box if I execute the mount command manually
I've been encountering the exact same problem past a few days. My
-CURRENT box is -CURRENT as of 01/18.
Another thing is that, I can mount filesystems via NFS from a -CURRENT
box if I execute the mount command manually. But it fails to mount
them via AMD. So it doesn't look like it is the probl
19 matches
Mail list logo
