| 1 |
On 02/15/2010 12:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 15 February 2010 21:23:54 walt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Anyone else having problems mounting nfs shares with nfs-utils-1.2.1? |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> 'mount.nfs' complains I'm passing it a bad nfs option no matter what |
| 6 |
>> options I give it, including no options. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Strace shows that nfs.mount is passing a weird-looking IP address |
| 9 |
>> string to the 'mount' system call (man 2 mount), e.g.: |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> mount("k2:/media/d", "/mnt/nfs", "nfs", 0, |
| 12 |
>> "addr=192.168.0.100,vers=4,client"...) = -1 EINVAL |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> At first glance I suspect you have nfs v4 support and the server does not like |
| 16 |
> it. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The USE flag changed at 1.1.6-r1 from nonfsv4 to nfsv4 so if you did not |
| 19 |
> change USE you will get the exact opposite support between the earliest and |
| 20 |
> most recent version in portage. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> <pet hate> |
| 23 |
> Don't you just hate negative USE flags on the lines of no* ? You have to |
| 24 |
> switch then on to not get something. Far better to have a positive flag and |
| 25 |
> enable it by default in the profile. Not to mention the confusion that |
| 26 |
> changing it later causes, witness this case here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I did not include nfs4 in my kernel because it was marked 'experimental'. |
| 29 |
(Hey, just because I choose to run ~amd64 doesn't mean I'm reckless ;o) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I set the 'nonfsv4' USE flag and recompiled nfs-utils but got exactly the |
| 32 |
same error. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The next step is to build a new kernel with nfs4 support and unset the |
| 35 |
'nonfsv4' flag, but at the moment I'm running a ver-r-r-y long partition |
| 36 |
resize with gparted so that I can add more space to my experimental lvm2 |
| 37 |
volumes. (Working great so far.) I think I'll fall asleep before gparted |
| 38 |
is finished, so I'll supply more information tomorrow. |
Archives