From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 20 21:12:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAAD539 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:12:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0568FC0A for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:12:40 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8EAD1+01CDaFvO/2dsb2JhbABCAw6GLLdMc4IeAQEFI1YbDgoCAg0ZAlkGE4gTpmGTG4EijEqCG4ETA4hijSmQSII2XIIE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,326,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="5616174" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2012 16:12:33 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0C1B3F15; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:12:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Tim Gustafson Message-ID: <1477482293.1529544.1356037953815.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: NFS Problems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:12:41 -0000 Tim Gustafson wrote: > > If you need locking to work, I'd suggest you try NFSv4. > > I'd like to, but we have Macintosh clients as well, and Mac has had > serious problems with NFSv4 in the past, specifically related to its > Kerberos support. Is it possible to have an NFSv4 server without > Kerberos? > Yep. Using Kerberos for NFS is really orthogonal to NFSv4. The only reason some people tie the two together is that the NFSv4.0 RFC required support for RPCSEC_GSS (which is what sec=krb5 does). Although support for AUTH_SYS wasn't required I believe all NFSv4 servers do support it and I know it works for FreeBSD. Just do the mounts without sec=krb5 and you'll be using NFSv4.0 over AUTH_SYS (which is the old uid + gid list stuff NFS has always used). I haven't tested it, but the NFSv4.0 client in Lion was supposed to work ok. (I do know that the Leopard one didn't work well.) rick > -- > > Tim Gustafson > tjg@soe.ucsc.edu > 831-459-5354 > Baskin Engineering, Room 313A