From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 26 20:01:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DB2106566C for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:01:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.w.meyer@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF598FC14 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so5224419iwn.13 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:01:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization:x-mailer:face :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8Ml1/mibj9yh1itMnBT6g3yW8S2FrvnYsLA24R5qxF4=; b=G6gl4oXCV6CIvidEOt/DfWyXMVWpZ4RzhimUrivzovky6YySTB3jTzBBEwuRMPEYXd 1Bt/rXeu1x237eP3rgVTeAr8gT+anKeuNmXIbdZLc9cBL97BGJpE2LgEkDGvocjS6Kb7 +BJTP0CjEaDQ1xz6BgrGQWxx6mp1V9uDc/a/4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :organization:x-mailer:face:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Xy4NuW7L4/L6LLmc7eaVas9gLdv+BRfQ+QDDlJYPFF4Z5P9Mk0x5L4dn8vjiKO9UJU Y2uuSRqLuWNpehNxSl8A+0yRCVnO9CJUCS1K9TG/Qfc15AwDVjYIDMZMKBzWYxIEBBu9 upyYSLI6jsG5lAF0moVDvvsutRkXCvoXlVI1g= Received: by 10.231.157.207 with SMTP id c15mr7754512ibx.143.1285531279933; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bhuda.mired.org ([74.143.213.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g31sm5256782ibh.22.2010.09.26.13.01.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:01:14 -0400 From: Mike Meyer To: Robert Bonomi Message-ID: <20100926160114.0d97a56c@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <201009251958.o8PJwLd0027577@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <201009251958.o8PJwLd0027577@mail.r-bonomi.com> Organization: Meyer Consulting X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.1) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems mounting nfs from freebsd to Mac. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:01:21 -0000 On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:58:21 -0500 (CDT) Robert Bonomi wrote: > > From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Sep 25 03:29:33 2010 > > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:01:18 -0400 > > From: Mike Meyer > > To: questions@freebsd.org > > Cc: > > Subject: Problems mounting nfs from freebsd to Mac. > > > > I've got an nfs server that's refusing to mount one client - via one > > route - and it's driving me crazy. > > First question, are you _SURE_ that it's a server-side problem? I under- > stand that things are failing in one situation and not others, but there > are about -five- possible causations, only one of which is a server-side > NFS configuration. No, I'm not sure. The question is more "what server tools can I use figure out what's wrong" than "how do I fix the server". That the FreeBSD community is the most helpful one involved might have some bearing on which question I chose to ask here. > > As far as I know, there are only three reasons for an NFS server to > > refuse a mount request: 1) The exports file is borked somehow, 2) The > > server insists that the client use a privileged port, or 3) The IP > > address the request is coming from is disallowed. > There _are_ others, depending on how access controls are specified in > the exports file. Those are pretty much what I meant by "the exports file is borked somehow". The file systems are all zfs, all exported by zfs, and mostly all inherited from the parent file system. For the record, that's: /export -maproot 0 -network 192.xx.yy.0/25 > > #1 isn't it - the file systems mount fine on other boxes. And they > > mount fine on the problem box via Wifi. > > > > #2 shouldn't be it - I'm running the server with -n turned on, and the > > mount works via wifi. > > > > #3 seems logical, but I only have one network enabled, and it's a > > *.0/25. The working addresses include .96, and .106, while the failing > > address is .105. So I'm not sure what's going on here. > > > > Running mountd with a -d flag generates no output at all when the > > request is denied. This makes me think I'm not looking in the right > > place. > > First thing, what does 'showmount -a', run on the misbehaving client show? > And are there differences, depending on being on the wired vs wireless link? Just "All mounts on localhost:" and then an empty list, whether they are mounted or not. > Check how the client resolves the server hostname on both the wireless and > wired links. It's the same. That's expected - the WRT610N is providing both dns & dhcp services, and they both resolve through it. > make sure the _server_ name (in the form used in the nfs mount) is > resolving in the same way -- to the same address -- when the client is > on thee wireless and wired links. (an 'unqualified' hostname, and a > lack of a default domain in the wired setup _could_ cause what you > are seeing. Yup, both connections resolve to the same address. Yes, I use an unqualified hostname, but the dhcp server provides a default domain. > Check to make sure you've got network connectivity both ways on both the > wired and wireless links. Does traceroute work in both directions on > both links? does it show the _same_names_? Yes, and yes. > You've say you've got a WRT610N in the middle of things. Is it actually > playing _router_ on all ports, or switch/hub on the lan side with routing > on the external interface. The latter, and it's bridging the wireless network into the LAN side as well. > If it's actually -routing- on all ports, check _both_ the client and server > routing tables to make sure they're pointing in the right plac, when the > client is connected on both paths. Also double-check the router itself > for any access-control and/or filtering rules. Those all look right to me. In particular, the client routing tables are identical (module different interface names & ip addresses) when it's on the wireless and wired connection. > If nothing has shown up so far, an obvious next step is to look at the data > 'on the wire' between the machines. e.g., tcpdump/etherfind/netshark etc. I was hoping for something a little bit higher level than that, but I guess that's what's next. Thanks, http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org