>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:25:03 +1300
>From: Joe Abley
>Never had a problem with it. Just to confirm that amd is not hideously
>broken beyond the point where _some_ people can use it just fine.
Likewise, though nearly all of our NFS activity is among FreeBSD boxen.
And we use NIS for the amd ma
< said:
> Erm, I haven't tried it between 3.0 and 3.0 boxes because all my test
> environments currently involve one of each (4.0 and 3.0), but I can
> certainly say that in none of these test environments does amd work at
> all.
Works just fine on a somewhat older 3.0 (which is still running the
I've been using amd on bleeding-edge current for the past year or so with
no problems - the servers in my case are Solaris 2.5.1 boxes.
I remember becoming extremely confused when I configured my first amd map
file, since there was no coherent documentation to be found at the time, but
I ended up
> Err On all of the machines where I use amd, I don't use -l syslog.
> I use -l /tmp/.automsg (or some other filename that lusers aren't likely
You're right, that does produce more information. Unfortunatly, not
enough to help diagnose the problem. :( I think something more
fundamental is br
> I use -l /tmp/.automsg (or some other filename that lusers aren't likely
..snip..
> I've found that am-utils is much more verbose than previous versions of
> amd so you may not want to leave it that way permanently ...
/var/log/amd.log and add it to /etc/newsyslog.conf.
Since this is what I use
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Jordan K.
Hubbard had to walk into mine and say:
> > Why is it clearly broken? proto=tcp,vers=3 is what is in 3.0-RELEASE,
> > Amd in 3.0 works for many. I won't defend that the new Amd works the
> > best with us, but then neither did the
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
> > Why is it clearly broken? proto=tcp,vers=3 is what is in 3.0-RELEASE,
> > Amd in 3.0 works for many. I won't defend that the new Amd works the
> > best with us, but then neither did the old Amd.
>
> Erm, I haven't tried it between 3.0 and 3.0 boxes because all my t
> Why is it clearly broken? proto=tcp,vers=3 is what is in 3.0-RELEASE,
> Amd in 3.0 works for many. I won't defend that the new Amd works the
> best with us, but then neither did the old Amd.
Erm, I haven't tried it between 3.0 and 3.0 boxes because all my test
environments currently involve on
> > Yes, to be consistent with the state of world WRT NFS. Or at least with
> > the leader -- Solaris. This has been the default in 3.0-C since the
> > am-utils import.
>
> Yeah, well, amd is a whole other ball of wax. That's clearly broken
> in both 3.0-stable and 4.0-current
Why is it clear
> Yes, to be consistent with the state of world WRT NFS. Or at least with
> the leader -- Solaris. This has been the default in 3.0-C since the
> am-utils import.
Yeah, well, amd is a whole other ball of wax. That's clearly broken
in both 3.0-stable and 4.0-current and we're going to have to re
> errors on "current" and checked the amd.conf file it was using.
> Version 3 of NFS seemed to be the default (!) for amd
Yes, to be consistent with the state of world WRT NFS. Or at least with
the leader -- Solaris. This has been the default in 3.0-C since the
am-utils import.
> it to version
In article <91639.917702...@zippy.cdrom.com>,
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> As of the day before yesterday, I started getting all manner of NFS
> errors on "current" and checked the amd.conf file it was using.
> Version 3 of NFS seemed to be the default (!) for amd so I changed
> it to version 2 a
12 matches
Mail list logo
