Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:12:52 -0700 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS v2? possible? Message-ID: <4CB5E2BF-134D-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <20031110075152.5b06fe12.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> References: <61B97A72-128F-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> <20031109112856.GB94834@xor.obsecurity.org> <6BE82884-1328-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> <20031109210901.Y31688@seekingfire.com> <F43836EC-1330-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> <20031109222121.A31688@seekingfire.com> <32F637C6-133A-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> <4C364FED-133F-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30@shire.net> <20031110075152.5b06fe12.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 9, 2003, at 11:51 PM, Miguel Mendez wrote: > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:32:38 -0700 > "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> wrote: > > Hi, > >> It seems to be ok. I don't know what the problem is, but it seems to >> be on the Linux end as I run mountd and portmap with verbose >> debugging, as appropriate to each, and mountd immediately returns a >> "mount successful" but Liunx take 10 minutes to return from the mount >> command. > > You probably want to use the 'nolock' option in Linux, that solved it > from me. > Thanks, I'll check. I did solve the problem though. The "runlevel" was set to be one less than full multi user mode which supposedly excluded nfs and I found a log file complaining about the client portmap daemon so I fixed that... Just got to get a new kernel to support v3 and do some tuning and we should be ok. thanks Chad > Cheers, > -- > Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> > http://www.energyhq.es.eu.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CB5E2BF-134D-11D8-9FD6-003065A70D30>