Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Tim Gustafson <tjg@soe.ucsc.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFS Problems Message-ID: <1477482293.1529544.1356037953815.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <CAG27QgT3w=D_=0hF6vg2jMsJCqLDkV7ZKwCMZd6=VygqK3arww@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Gustafson wrote: > > If you need locking to work, I'd suggest you try NFSv4. > > I'd like to, but we have Macintosh clients as well, and Mac has had > serious problems with NFSv4 in the past, specifically related to its > Kerberos support. Is it possible to have an NFSv4 server without > Kerberos? > Yep. Using Kerberos for NFS is really orthogonal to NFSv4. The only reason some people tie the two together is that the NFSv4.0 RFC required support for RPCSEC_GSS (which is what sec=krb5 does). Although support for AUTH_SYS wasn't required I believe all NFSv4 servers do support it and I know it works for FreeBSD. Just do the mounts without sec=krb5 and you'll be using NFSv4.0 over AUTH_SYS (which is the old uid + gid list stuff NFS has always used). I haven't tested it, but the NFSv4.0 client in Lion was supposed to work ok. (I do know that the Leopard one didn't work well.) rick > -- > > Tim Gustafson > tjg@soe.ucsc.edu > 831-459-5354 > Baskin Engineering, Room 313A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1477482293.1529544.1356037953815.JavaMail.root>