On 12/24/13 23:07, Leonid Flaks wrote:
> Did you look into /etc/nfsmount.conf file? It has lots of useful hints in
> comments and seems to be able to control NFS versions at 3 levels - per mount
> point, per server and globally. It is done on the client end.
That is OKbut doesn't fit the bi
On 12/24/2013 05:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 12/24/13 17:21, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
After making the suggested changes.
[root@meimei ~]# mount -o ro,nfsvers=4 192.168.0.196:/home /mnt
[root@meimei ~]# mount | grep mnt
192.168.0.196:/home on /mnt ty
is what i expected.
sadly, i don't have access to my fedora 20 box at the moment,
but all i was doing was trying to produce the same result --
only those two lines in the output of "rpcinfo -p". i can see
that the *effect* of the earlier suggestions is the same, in
that only NFS
134 udp 2049 nfs
>
> and that's *it*, nothing more, which is what i expected.
>
> sadly, i don't have access to my fedora 20 box at the moment,
> but all i was doing was trying to produce the same result --
> only those two lines in the output of "rp
4 udp 2049 nfs
and that's *it*, nothing more, which is what i expected.
sadly, i don't have access to my fedora 20 box at the moment,
but all i was doing was trying to produce the same result --
only those two lines in the output of "rpcinfo -p". i can see
that the
On 12/24/13 17:21, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>
>> After making the suggested changes.
>>
>> [root@meimei ~]# mount -o ro,nfsvers=4 192.168.0.196:/home /mnt
>> [root@meimei ~]# mount | grep mnt
>> 192.168.0.196:/home on /mnt type nfs4
>> (ro,relatime,ve
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 12/24/13 09:12, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> After making the suggested changes.
>
> [root@meimei ~]# mount -o ro,nfsvers=4 192.168.0.196:/home /mnt
> [root@meimei ~]# mount | grep mnt
> 192.168.0.196:/home on /mnt type nfs4
> (ro,relatim
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
> Port 2049 is used by V4. I don't think V3 or V2 uses it
2049 is the nfs port for all nfs versions.
"grep nfs /etc/services"
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://adm
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Robert P. J. Day
wrote:
> Quoting Ed Greshko :
>>
>> In /etc/sysconfig/nfs
>>
>> # Optional arguments passed to rpc.nfsd. See rpc.nfsd(8)
>> RPCNFSDARGS=""
>>
>> man 8 rpc.nfsd
>>
>> -N or --no-nfs-version vers
>> This option can be used to r
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Robert P. J. Day
wrote:
>
> how does one configure fedora 20 to support only NFSv4? i'm used to
> mucking with /etc/sysconfig/nfs in earlier versions of RH, and tweaking
> the variables MOUNTD_NFS_V* and RPCNFSDARGS. i don't see those v
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-January/097465.html
>>>
>>> in that, at the time, it *appeared* that you couldn't set up
>>> NFS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
>>> with this again, anyone know whether that&
On 12/24/13 09:12, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> as a quick test, i added "-U" but the only change was that
> "rpcinfo -p" showed me that UDP was no longer being accepted
> for v4 only:
>
> 133 tcp 2049 nfs
> 1002273 tcp 2049 nfs_acl
> 133 udp 2049 nfs
On 12/24/13 09:12, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'll test further later.
I decided to test for you. :-)
After making the suggested changes.
[root@meimei ~]# mount -o ro,nfsvers=4 192.168.0.196:/home /mnt
[root@meimei ~]# mount | grep mnt
192.168.0.196:/home on /mnt type nfs4
(ro,relatime,ver
On 12/24/13 09:12, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> as a quick test, i added "-U" but the only change was that
> "rpcinfo -p" showed me that UDP was no longer being accepted
> for v4 only:
>
> 133 tcp 2049 nfs
> 1002273 tcp 2049 nfs_acl
> 133 udp 2049 nfs
>
which only NFSv4 is running,
and no earlier versions are supported? thanks.
It's been possible to run nfsv4-only nfs for a long time, with only
port 2049 being let through the firewall. It only appears that you
can't because because rpc.mountd has to run on the server but it's
only
t you couldn't set up
>>>>> NFS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
>>>>> with this again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
>>>>> is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
>>>>
that, at the time, it *appeared* that you couldn't set up
NFS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
with this again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
and no earlier versions are support
ists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-January/097465.html
>>>
>>> in that, at the time, it *appeared* that you couldn't set up
>>> NFS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
>>> with this again, anyone know whether that's changed
FS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
with this again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
and no earlier versions are supported? thanks.
It's been possible to run nfsv4-only nfs for a
FS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
with this again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
and no earlier versions are supported? thanks.
It's been possible to run nfsv4-only nfs for a
set up
> NFS so that *only* version 4 was running. before i start messing
> with this again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
> is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
> and no earlier versions are supported? thanks.
It's been possible
again, anyone know whether that's changed? that is,
is it possible to set up a network in which only NFSv4 is running,
and no earlier versions are supported? thanks.
rday
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.o
amba
domain security? Or will then need a Microsoft Active Domain Controller?
- Moving to Samba4 (or FreeIPA) would solve those issues, if I can't use
the current Samba3 PDC and BDC with a NAS server?
- NFS access to the NAS server will be compatible with latest NFSv4
security, or will it re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neal Becker wrote:
> I'm wondering if I can use nfsv4 idmap so that I can share files between
> systems
> without syncing uids.
>
> Thing is, I don't want to have to learn kerberos, ldap, etc.
>
> Is it possible to
I'm wondering if I can use nfsv4 idmap so that I can share files between
systems
without syncing uids.
Thing is, I don't want to have to learn kerberos, ldap, etc.
Is it possible to use idmap functionality without any complicated setup?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproj
: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:35 PM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: NFSv4
2cents, cause I could get idmap'ing to work yesterday. I looked in all
the wrong places. I had a dup ipaddress in the subnet and idmap would
just show nobody for everyone. Doesnt sound like your problem. I
2cents, cause I could get idmap'ing to work yesterday. I looked in all
the wrong places. I had a dup ipaddress in the subnet and idmap would
just show nobody for everyone. Doesnt sound like your problem. I uses
nis a while ago also and know nsswitch.conf or some such can change
the lookup ordering,
Ahh
One thing that just popped into my mind. Again, recall that NIS is not in
my
memory.
When you run NIS do you have user names and groups and such defined only in NIS
databases? I mean, isn't the passwd files basically where only system users
are defined?
What were to happen if
random mounts failing at boot time.
>> Since I
>> don't see mapping problems I'd be more suspect of NIS.
>>
>>
> But with NFSv4 as NFSv3 looks and works fine on F17.
Yes... But, and this is where I've forgotten most of what I know about NIS,
maybe
t
now there have been changes to nfs-utils. One
change involved the idmap service and no longer needing to run it on the
client. But I just wrote a bugzilla against it for random mounts failing at
boot time. Since I don't see mapping problems I'd be more suspect of NIS.
But with NF
Raymond Pittigher wrote:
>the fstab is set at defaults. i am guessing something has changed with
>the nfs-utils package maybe with nis?
>
>[root@dhcp5169 ~]# getfacl /users/zbarak/
>getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
># file: users/zbarak/
># owner: 4294967294
># group: 429496
On 06/18/2012 07:51 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/18/2012 07:40 PM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
I am using NIS to keep the users/groups the same across all systems. Yes it is
old
and outdated but it works for what I need it for. I have tried several different
options including the defaults for all
On 06/18/2012 07:40 PM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
> I am using NIS to keep the users/groups the same across all systems. Yes it
> is old
> and outdated but it works for what I need it for. I have tried several
> different
> options including the defaults for all, this just happens to be where I am
On 06/18/2012 07:27 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/18/2012 06:43 PM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
The server is RHEL6.2 and the clients are either Centos or Fedora and the
problem
seems to be with release 17. On all clients the mount uses defaults. So on the
F17
box we have:
172.30.5.244:/users/
On 06/18/2012 06:43 PM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
>
>
> The server is RHEL6.2 and the clients are either Centos or Fedora and the
> problem
> seems to be with release 17. On all clients the mount uses defaults. So on
> the F17
> box we have:
>
> 172.30.5.244:/users/ on /users type nfs4
> (rw,relat
with Fedora 17 at the moment. I did a clean
install with Fedora 16 and had it working properly then did the upgrade to 17
and NFSv4 is missing some, not all, of the mappings. That list above is a small
paste of about 300 users. I then did a clean install of Fedora 17 and it also
has the same
On 06/17/2012 10:40 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Regardless of that I found that on my system rpc.idmapd would not start
> on book
> when the service was enabled. The only way I could get it to start on boot
> was to
> also enable NetworkManager-wait-online.service.
I take that back It see
On 06/16/2012 05:43 PM, Pittigher, Raymond - ES wrote:
> Yes, I configured the /etc/idmapd... file and set the Domain variable.
> Started the systemctl restart nfs-idmap.service.
One thing I noticedbut am still scratching my head I need to go back
and
check the "test" mailing list archi
On 06/16/2012 03:05 AM, Pittigher, Raymond - ES wrote:
not sure I have the authority to drop the bullcrap at the end of the email. I
did not know about the -- and I am trying that in this email.
FYI, the proper .sig separator is "-- " on a line of its own, and the
space at the end is required
> did a clean install with Fedora 16 and had it working properly then did the
> upgrade to 17 and NFSv4 is missing some, not all, of the mappings. That list
> above is a small paste of about 300 users. I then did a clean install of
> Fedora 17 and it also has the same problem. Abou
:53 AM
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: NFSv4
>
> Am 16.06.2012 11:43, schrieb Pittigher:
>> Email addresses of ITT Exelis employees have changed from itt.com to
>> exelisinc.com. Please update your favorites and contact information to
>> reflect these changes.
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Reindl Harald
[h.rei...@thelounge.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:53 AM
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: NFSv4
Am 16.06.2012 11:43
Am 16.06.2012 11:43, schrieb Pittigher:
> Email addresses of ITT Exelis employees have changed from itt.com to
> exelisinc.com. Please update your favorites and contact information to
> reflect these changes.
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are
> inte
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Chapman
[packa...@amiga-hardware.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:40 AM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: NFSv4
On 06/16/2012 12
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Ed Greshko
[ed.gres...@greshko.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:17 PM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: NFSv4
On 06/16/2012 12:45 AM
On 06/16/2012 12:45 AM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
Starting to use Fedora on a system or 2 instead of RHEL5 or 6 and I
notice that on my NFSv4 mounts I get this
drwx--x---. 28 4294967294 4294967294 4096 Apr 26 2011 user2
drwx--x---. 39 users1 user1 4096 Apr 26 2011 user1
Some users are
On 15Jun2012 12:45, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
| Starting to use Fedora on a system or 2 instead of RHEL5 or 6 and I
| notice that on my NFSv4 mounts I get this
|
| drwx--x---. 28 4294967294 4294967294 4096 Apr 26 2011 user2
That is uid and gid -2, cast to unsigned 32-bit.
I would
On 06/16/2012 12:45 AM, Raymond Pittigher wrote:
>
>
>
> Starting to use Fedora on a system or 2 instead of RHEL5 or 6 and I
> notice that on my NFSv4 mounts I get this
>
> drwx--x---. 28 4294967294 4294967294 4096 Apr 26 2011 user2
> drwx--x---. 39 users1
Starting to use Fedora on a system or 2 instead of RHEL5 or 6 and I
notice that on my NFSv4 mounts I get this
drwx--x---. 28 4294967294 4294967294 4096 Apr 26 2011 user2
drwx--x---. 39 users1 user14096 Apr 26 2011 user1
Some users are displayed and some are nobody
On 10/06/2011 06:02 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> 3. On the server, edit the volume configuration file
>> (/etc/glusterfs/glusterfsd.vol) so that it looks like this:
>>
>> volume raw
>>type storage/posix
>>option directory /fileserver
>> end-volume
>> [...]
>
> Hm, the setup of volumes is
>3. On the server, edit the volume configuration file
>(/etc/glusterfs/glusterfsd.vol) so that it looks like this:
>
>volume raw
> type storage/posix
> option directory /fileserver
>end-volume
>[...]
Hm, the setup of volumes is very different from what is done in the
Gluster Administration G
On 08/25/2011 08:59 AM, Marcos Luis Ortiz Valmaseda wrote:
> Excellent how to Dr.
> Can you add this to the Fedora wiki?
If someone wants to stick it in an appropriate place on a Fedora wiki,
please go ahead. I'll help maintain and edit it.
- Mike
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject
Excellent how to Dr.
Can you add this to the Fedora wiki?
2011/8/25 Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak
> As detailed in another thread, we upgraded a few test machines on our
> LAN to Fedora 15 (with gnome-shell and firefox), with user folders
> served from a NFSv4 server (F14 originally,
As detailed in another thread, we upgraded a few test machines on our
LAN to Fedora 15 (with gnome-shell and firefox), with user folders
served from a NFSv4 server (F14 originally, then F15).
It just didn't work. The F15 desktops would freeze frequently. And
worse, this would freez
I can tell when
> another gnome-shell system is in use, because mine freezes!
OK, gnome-shell + firefox + nfsv4 = JUST DOESN'T WORK.
I switched to glusterfs, and with a few tweaks, it rocks! (Tweaks = need
"features/posix-locks" in glusterfsd configs, and do the client mounts
i
es!
>
> All users have nfsv4-mounted home folders on an F15 server. The systems
> are acting like network problems are happening. If I Ctrl+F2 to a text
> console, the local system is responsive, but directory listings of
> remote folders are sluggish.
Maybe I should re-phrase the qu
es!
>
> All users have nfsv4-mounted home folders on an F15 server. The systems
> are acting like network problems are happening. If I Ctrl+F2 to a text
> console, the local system is responsive, but directory listings of
> remote folders are sluggish.
>
> I don't see useful
>
> A bit of searching shows this:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=596176
I have "no_root_squash" on the nfsv4 server, so it isn't that bug... but
thanks for the pointer anyway.
- Mike
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subs
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:25:56 -0400
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> Any bug reports on NFS issues?
I've never made any bug reports since I don't actually need to use
it that way, I've just noticed the probably when I accidentally
signed on as the wrong user sometimes.
A bit of searching shows t
On 08/22/2011 03:20 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
>> Anybody heard of something similar?
>
> I'm surprised you are merely slow. I can't get gnome to come
> up at all on an NFS mounted home. I've always suspected the
> annoying gnome filesystem bilge and the special fuse filesystem
> mountpoint it tries to
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:46:55 -0400
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> Anybody heard of something similar?
I'm surprised you are merely slow. I can't get gnome to come
up at all on an NFS mounted home. I've always suspected the
annoying gnome filesystem bilge and the special fuse filesystem
mountpo
users have nfsv4-mounted home folders on an F15 server. The systems
are acting like network problems are happening. If I Ctrl+F2 to a text
console, the local system is responsive, but directory listings of
remote folders are sluggish.
I don't see useful info in the logs.
However, ifc
I have a network environment using Fedora 15 as clients and EL 5 as an
NFSv4 Server. Everything running with Kerberos thanks to FeeIPA. The
question is more related to POSIX ACLs and NFS that any FreeIPA special
setup, so asking here first.
FreeIPA uses a default configuration for user
, if i edit
> /etc/sysconfig/nfs and uncomment the lines:
>
> MOUNTD_NFS_V1="no"
> MOUNTD_NFS_V2="no"
> MOUNTD_NFS_V3="no
>
> i would have thought that this would mean that i'm trying to use NFSv4
> exclusively. but if i try that, i still
ot;no"
MOUNTD_NFS_V2="no"
MOUNTD_NFS_V3="no
i would have thought that this would mean that i'm trying to use NFSv4
exclusively. but if i try that, i still get that same error from
mountd on rhel as i did on fedora.
i've verified that, to get around it, i simply need
65 matches
Mail list logo
