The other day I installed OpenSolaris but so far I'm unable to mount my nfs disk:
> # mount -F nfs Kaapstad:/admin /mnt/Kaapstadadmin/ > nfs mount: Kaapstad:/admin: No such file or directory
Kaapstad is in /etc/hosts, Kaapstad:/admin is in /etc/vfstab. Other machines have no problem mounting the disk, and this machine is in the exports-list. Any clue?
> The other day I installed OpenSolaris but so far I'm unable to mount my > nfs disk:
>> # mount -F nfs Kaapstad:/admin /mnt/Kaapstadadmin/ >> nfs mount: Kaapstad:/admin: No such file or directory
> Kaapstad is in /etc/hosts, Kaapstad:/admin is in /etc/vfstab. Other > machines have no problem mounting the disk, and this machine is in the > exports-list. > Any clue?
See if the automounter can see it, does anything show up under /net/Kaapstad?
On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:40:45 +0200, Huub wrote: >> # mount -F nfs Kaapstad:/admin /mnt/Kaapstadadmin/ >> nfs mount: Kaapstad:/admin: No such file or directory
On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:44:26 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: > Is the Solaris NFSv4 client doing something wrong, or the NFSv4 server > doing something wrong? It is a pity to have to downgrade to v3...
The Solaris client *should* adapt to the capability of the server without a kluge like that. It does not.
On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:43:49 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 2008-05-11 13:32:32 +0100, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> said: >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:44:26 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>> Is the Solaris NFSv4 client doing something wrong, or the NFSv4 server >>> doing something wrong? It is a pity to have to downgrade to v3...
>> The Solaris client *should* adapt to the capability of the server without >> a kluge like that. It does not.
> I suppose there are a couple of things to ask then: a) why isn't NFSv4 > working, and b) as it isn't, why isn't the downgrade to NFSv3 working?
I don't know how an NFSv4-only client can connect to an NFSv3 server unless the client is smart enough to use NFSv3. The one in Solaris is not that smart. Neither S10u4, S10u5, OpenSolaris nor any of the Nevada builds are capable of mounting an NFSv3 share without modifying /etc/default/nfs.
Hack /etc/default/nfs and the Solaris client easily mounts the NFSv3 share.
On 2008-05-11 16:16:59 +0100, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> said:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:43:49 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: >> On 2008-05-11 13:32:32 +0100, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> said: >>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:44:26 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>>> Is the Solaris NFSv4 client doing something wrong, or the NFSv4 server >>>> doing something wrong? It is a pity to have to downgrade to v3...
>>> The Solaris client *should* adapt to the capability of the server without >>> a kluge like that. It does not.
>> I suppose there are a couple of things to ask then: a) why isn't NFSv4 >> working, and b) as it isn't, why isn't the downgrade to NFSv3 working?
> I don't know how an NFSv4-only client can connect to an NFSv3 server
OK, I didn't think it was an NFSv4-only client.
> unless the client is smart enough to use NFSv3. The one in Solaris is not > that smart. Neither S10u4, S10u5, OpenSolaris nor any of the Nevada > builds are capable of mounting an NFSv3 share without modifying > /etc/default/nfs.
They can't even mount an NFSv4 share from some kinds of servers :-(
> Hack /etc/default/nfs and the Solaris client easily mounts the NFSv3 share.
Yep, that's pretty much the first thing we do with a new box...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:43:49 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: >> On 2008-05-11 13:32:32 +0100, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> said: >>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:44:26 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>>> Is the Solaris NFSv4 client doing something wrong, or the NFSv4 server >>>> doing something wrong? It is a pity to have to downgrade to v3...
>>> The Solaris client *should* adapt to the capability of the server without >>> a kluge like that. It does not.
>> I suppose there are a couple of things to ask then: a) why isn't NFSv4 >> working, and b) as it isn't, why isn't the downgrade to NFSv3 working?
> I don't know how an NFSv4-only client can connect to an NFSv3 server > unless the client is smart enough to use NFSv3. The one in Solaris is not > that smart. Neither S10u4, S10u5, OpenSolaris nor any of the Nevada > builds are capable of mounting an NFSv3 share without modifying > /etc/default/nfs.
Solaris will fall back to NFSv3 and NFSv2 if NFSv4 isn't supported. If the server does have NFSv4 enabled but it's not working right, then there's no fallback -- that's not what the fallback is intended for.
> Hack /etc/default/nfs and the Solaris client easily mounts the NFSv3 share.
-- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:39:15 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > Solaris will fall back to NFSv3 and NFSv2 if NFSv4 isn't supported. > If the server does have NFSv4 enabled but it's not working right, then > there's no fallback -- that's not what the fallback is intended for.
OK, perhaps the Linux NFS server is the real problem then. I thought that I had disabled NFSv4 on that server but
[root@newton /proc/17856]# cat status Name: nfsd4
I never did trust Linux NFS very much but that machine is my print server also and the printer requires HPLIP, which will not build on Solaris.
On 2008-05-11 18:14:22 +0100, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> said:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:39:15 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> Solaris will fall back to NFSv3 and NFSv2 if NFSv4 isn't supported. >> If the server does have NFSv4 enabled but it's not working right, then >> there's no fallback -- that's not what the fallback is intended for.
> OK, perhaps the Linux NFS server is the real problem then. I thought that > I had disabled NFSv4 on that server but
> [root@newton /proc/17856]# cat status > Name: nfsd4
> I never did trust Linux NFS very much but that machine is my print server > also and the printer requires HPLIP, which will not build on Solaris.
Do we know what the exact NFS incompatibility is here?
