nfs
in [Slackware]
|
From: Mike Jones on 19 Jan 2010 08:11 Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: > On Jan 18, 2:40 pm, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: >> >> > I'm trying to connect to a nfs share from a 12.0 system to a 13.0 >> > system. Cient (v12.0) runs ext3. Server (v13.0) runs ext4. Is that >> > a problem? >> > First I was getting (from /var/log/messages) "kernel: portmap: Server >> > localhost not responding, timed out" >> > I asumed portmap needed to be running so I ran portmap and now >> > getting: "mount: RPC: Program not registered" /etc/exports entry: >> > /home/tgm/Pictures 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) >> >> > Any clues? >> >> Have you seen "sshfs" yet? >> >> If all you want is *NIX-2-*NIX LAN mounts, this is way simpler, >> encrypted by default, and easier to secure too. I replaced all my NFS >> stuff with it and haven't looked back. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sshfs >> > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try sshfs next time for sure. Pay attention to the "workarounds". You'll need at least the "rename" one if you're going to replace NFS with SSHFS. As I said though, I've been using it without a glitch for some time now as a direct NFS replacement. Post up if\when you want some config\setup examples. -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Grant on 19 Jan 2010 14:57 On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:11:50 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: > >> On Jan 18, 2:40 pm, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >>> Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: >>> >>> > I'm trying to connect to a nfs share from a 12.0 system to a 13.0 >>> > system. Cient (v12.0) runs ext3. Server (v13.0) runs ext4. Is that >>> > a problem? >>> > First I was getting (from /var/log/messages) "kernel: portmap: Server >>> > localhost not responding, timed out" >>> > I asumed portmap needed to be running so I ran portmap and now >>> > getting: "mount: RPC: Program not registered" /etc/exports entry: >>> > /home/tgm/Pictures 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) >>> >>> > Any clues? >>> >>> Have you seen "sshfs" yet? >>> >>> If all you want is *NIX-2-*NIX LAN mounts, this is way simpler, >>> encrypted by default, and easier to secure too. I replaced all my NFS >>> stuff with it and haven't looked back. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sshfs >>> >> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try sshfs next time for sure. > > >Pay attention to the "workarounds". You'll need at least the "rename" one >if you're going to replace NFS with SSHFS. As I said though, I've been >using it without a glitch for some time now as a direct NFS replacement. sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au
From: Mike Jones on 19 Jan 2010 16:11 Responding to Grant: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:11:50 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: > >>Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: >> >>> On Jan 18, 2:40 pm, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >>>> Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: >>>> >>>> > I'm trying to connect to a nfs share from a 12.0 system to a 13.0 >>>> > system. Cient (v12.0) runs ext3. Server (v13.0) runs ext4. Is >>>> > that a problem? >>>> > First I was getting (from /var/log/messages) "kernel: portmap: >>>> > Server localhost not responding, timed out" >>>> > I asumed portmap needed to be running so I ran portmap and now >>>> > getting: "mount: RPC: Program not registered" /etc/exports entry: >>>> > /home/tgm/Pictures 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) >>>> >>>> > Any clues? >>>> >>>> Have you seen "sshfs" yet? >>>> >>>> If all you want is *NIX-2-*NIX LAN mounts, this is way simpler, >>>> encrypted by default, and easier to secure too. I replaced all my NFS >>>> stuff with it and haven't looked back. >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sshfs >>>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try sshfs next time for sure. >> >> >>Pay attention to the "workarounds". You'll need at least the "rename" >>one if you're going to replace NFS with SSHFS. As I said though, I've >>been using it without a glitch for some time now as a direct NFS >>replacement. > > sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser > simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) > > Grant. It is if all you want is home LAN basics though. You're talking multi- office-level functions there. -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Dan C on 19 Jan 2010 23:07 On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:11:00 +0000, Mike Jones wrote: > Responding to Grant: > >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:11:50 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> >>>Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: >>> >>>> On Jan 18, 2:40 pm, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >>>>> Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: >>>>> >>>>> > I'm trying to connect to a nfs share from a 12.0 system to a 13.0 >>>>> > system. Cient (v12.0) runs ext3. Server (v13.0) runs ext4. Is >>>>> > that a problem? >>>>> > First I was getting (from /var/log/messages) "kernel: portmap: >>>>> > Server localhost not responding, timed out" I asumed portmap >>>>> > needed to be running so I ran portmap and now getting: "mount: >>>>> > RPC: Program not registered" /etc/exports entry: >>>>> > /home/tgm/Pictures 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) >>>>> >>>>> > Any clues? >>>>> >>>>> Have you seen "sshfs" yet? >>>>> >>>>> If all you want is *NIX-2-*NIX LAN mounts, this is way simpler, >>>>> encrypted by default, and easier to secure too. I replaced all my >>>>> NFS stuff with it and haven't looked back. >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sshfs >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try sshfs next time for sure. >>> >>> >>>Pay attention to the "workarounds". You'll need at least the "rename" >>>one if you're going to replace NFS with SSHFS. As I said though, I've >>>been using it without a glitch for some time now as a direct NFS >>>replacement. >> >> sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser >> simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) >> >> Grant. > > > It is if all you want is home LAN basics though. You're talking multi- > office-level functions there. Not necessarily... What if two people in the home LAN want to access the same .mp3 music file from a server at the same time? There are many other scenarios, as well. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: trryhend on 20 Jan 2010 10:19
On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, Grant <g_r_a_n...(a)bugsplatter.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:11:50 GMT, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: > >Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: > > >> On Jan 18, 2:40 pm, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: > >>> Responding to trryh...(a)gmail.com: > > >>> > I'm trying to connect to a nfs share from a 12.0 system to a 13.0 > >>> > system. Cient (v12.0) runs ext3. Server (v13.0) runs ext4. Is that > >>> > a problem? > >>> > First I was getting (from /var/log/messages) "kernel: portmap: Server > >>> > localhost not responding, timed out" > >>> > I asumed portmap needed to be running so I ran portmap and now > >>> > getting: "mount: RPC: Program not registered" /etc/exports entry: > >>> > /home/tgm/Pictures 192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) > > >>> > Any clues? > > >>> Have you seen "sshfs" yet? > > >>> If all you want is *NIX-2-*NIX LAN mounts, this is way simpler, > >>> encrypted by default, and easier to secure too. I replaced all my NFS > >>> stuff with it and haven't looked back. > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sshfs > > >> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try sshfs next time for sure. > > >Pay attention to the "workarounds". You'll need at least the "rename" one > >if you're going to replace NFS with SSHFS. As I said though, I've been > >using it without a glitch for some time now as a direct NFS replacement. > > sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser > simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) > > Grant. > --http://bugs.id.au Good point. User names on these two computers are NOT same. AND, if I want to mount the share from my laptop, (the way it is now), long as I remember the shared directory names and IP addresses, I will be able to connect to them as well. (We often share photos from holiday and vacation trips that we enjoy together.) The way I have it set up [after the second visit] is pretty good and simple too. The situation is this; My sister and her husband have their own computers. My sister's is in the living room and her husband, Tod's is in the office and they are both connected via common router to the internet. The dhcp range is from 192.168.6.100 - 192.168.6.150 and so I set Tod's PC set to 192.168.6.5 and Candi's to 192.168.6.6 I have exports entry in one /home/tcm/Pictures 192.168.6.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) and exports entry in the other /home/cmt/pictures 192.168.6.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,all_squash) So that now they both have pictures/ and Pictures/ in their respective home directories. Tod's pictures are mostly his side of the family, (lots of old photos that he and his family have scanned and saved over time) and they can be found in Pictures/ Candi's pictures are more current ones but includes lots of pictures of her side of the family and a lot of vacation and holiday pictures that have been taken with their digital camera which they've had for only a little over a year now and her pictures can be found in the pictures/ directory The respective fstab entries are as follows 192.168.6.5:/home/tcm/pictures nfs rw,nolock,nocto,actimeo=3600 0 0 192.168.6.6:/home/cmt/Pictures nfs rw,nolock,nocto,actimeo=3600 0 0 So on Tod's PC we see /home/tcm/pictures & /home/tcm/Pictures On Candi's PC we see /home/cmt/pictures & /home/cmt/Pictures So now they can read and write to each other's set of photos as well as anyone that enters their LAN, (as long as they know where / how to mount each nfs). So it's a pretty good arrangement. I suppose the next call I get will be for them to share Documents/ .... at which time I'll probably do the same, just change one to documents/ and set yet another nfs share on each PC same as before. |