On Sunday 29 August 2004 04:28, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Probably you haven't seen my initial post and description of the problem. Here it goes: In a mixed manufacturing server/workstation environment of Linux, SUN, HPUX we had this particular problem with SuSE9.1 Pro. When we tried to mount remote NFS shares from HPUX servers, they appeared to be mounted over udp but empty. I mean mounted directories are visible but without any content. Remote NFS shares from other Linux and SUN servers were mounted correctly. Older versions of SuSE like 8.0/8.1 didn't have this problem. I search for the solution to overcome this problem on SuSE 9.1 we red this:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6 .8.1 --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Summary of changes from v2.6.8 to v2.6.8.1 ============================================
[PATCH] Fix NFS client screw-up in fcntl f_op removal Fix stupid thinkos in the fcntl f_op removal code.
Linux 2.6.8.1 --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- After loading and compiling plain 2.6.8.1 kernel and installing new util-linux, the problem with mounting HPUX NFS shares has gone. Now, read my posting below and tell me why it was a bad advise.
Alex
On Saturday 28 August 2004 11:38 am, steve-ss wrote:
On Saturday 28 August 2004 20:09, SuSE Ground Zero wrote:
On Saturday 28 August 2004 19:45, Alex Daniloff wrote:
What bug ... mine is working ok with the 2.6.5-7.104 kernel either udp either tcp especially with nfsv3.
Hello SuSE folks, For those who interested: The default SuSE kernel apparently has an NFS bug. Here is a practical solution which worked for me: 1. I've downloaded and compiled plain kernel 2.6.8.1 from kernel.org 2. Downloaded and installed new version of util-linux from kernel.org 3. In /etc/fstab for all nfs mounts I've added nfsvers=2 parameter. Now all remote NFS shares are mounted correctly on this box.
Alex
No. I don't agree either. Our 104 kernels are working fine. Not good advice.
<question> have I bottom posted? Am I correct in doing this? TIA </question> Steve.
My apologies. I had not read the other bits of the thread. Our lan is all 9.1.