| 1 |
On 12 August 2005 04:13, Bob Sanders wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Uwe Thiem <uwix@××××.na> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput |
| 6 |
> > but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? |
| 7 |
> > I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed |
| 8 |
> > some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly |
| 9 |
> > appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I |
| 10 |
> > would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The long timeout before password is probably DNS not working the port |
| 13 |
> properly. Just a guess. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Nope. Same behaviour when using IP addresses. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Have you tried - scp, in both directions? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, did it now. Surprisingly it transfers data at 2xB/s both ways. Quite |
| 21 |
different from sftp. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> And which nfs? V3, V4? I suggest V4, if not. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
V3 is what nfsstat says. Hmm. I've enabled both, V3 and V4, server- and |
| 27 |
client-side. How do I force it to use V4? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Have you run top and netstat -rn on both boxes to see what they think the |
| 31 |
> routing is? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Routes are alright. Both boxes have a route to the class C network |
| 34 |
(192.168.254.0/24) they are using. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Uwe |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software |
| 40 |
developers. - Linus Torvalds |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives