Re: What linux lacks most - a decent remote fs

[John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim wrote:
> 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 data
> > actually 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:-)