|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:can't believe how widely used NFS is, because it is the source of endless problems for me. I've never seen it work with any kind of reliability at all. One thing I'll say for samba is that the dataactually seems to show up correctly on the other side :-).I've had the opposite. Samba stalling and transferring at a rate slower than I can retype a file. Samba never managing to connect to the other side. The hassles of manually setting up each user. The hassles of file permissions and ownership getting screwed up in transit. Compared to NFS working without pain. Though, I have to say that my painless NFS server is on a FC4 machine, and that works fine. I've found I've had to manually mess with firewalling to get it to work through anything higher than FC4.
I'm surprised you don't need to with FC4. It's actually fairly simple. [root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx sysconfig]# cat nfs LOCKD_TCPPORT=32768 LOCKD_UDPPORT=32788 RQUOTAD_PORT=621 MOUNTD_PORT=640 [root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx sysconfig]#I chose the ports that were actually in use, but left it its own devices it can choose ports of other servers yet to start. CPUS for example.
-- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)
[Home] [Current Fedora Users] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Singles Community] [Fedora SELinux] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools] [Fedora Docs]