From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 27 00:59:35 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4959716A41C for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 00:59:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from virenp@mail.utexas.edu) Received: from smtp.cm.utexas.edu (smtp.cm.utexas.edu [146.6.135.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE3243D53 for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 00:59:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from virenp@mail.utexas.edu) Received: from mail.cm.utexas.edu (smtp.cm.utexas.edu [146.6.135.3]) by smtp.cm.utexas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CC66D484; Thu, 26 May 2005 19:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 66.25.129.27 (SquirrelMail authenticated user vpatel) by mail.cm.utexas.edu with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2005 19:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <1073.66.25.129.27.1117155574.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050526154133.GA38205@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1282.66.25.129.27.1117067480.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <20050526010713.GA92954@xor.obsecurity.org> <1475.66.25.129.27.1117071597.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <20050526014526.GA7378@xor.obsecurity.org> <1144.66.25.129.27.1117111793.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <20050526154133.GA38205@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:59:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Viren Patel" To: "Kris Kennaway" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS broken after upgrading to 5.4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: virenp@mail.utexas.edu List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:59:35 -0000 > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:49:53AM -0500, Viren Patel > wrote: >> > >> > What does ^T show for the status of the 'hung' >> process? >> > Are you >> > certain that DNS resolution is working correctly on >> both >> > machines? >> > >> > Kris >> > >> > >> >> Thanks for your help. Interestingly when I tried the >> mounts this morning they all worked, so I can't provide >> ^T >> output. Go figure. >> >> Since my clients and the server are communicating over a >> private LAN, they don't use DNS. However >> /etc/nsswitch.conf contains: >> >> hosts: files dns >> >> and in /etc/hosts I have: >> >> 127.0.0.1 localhost >> 192.168.0.10 backuphost >> >> The problem occurred whether I used IP or hostname. I've >> also noticed that mount_nfs tended to succeed if >> preceded >> by a ping to the backuphost. I rebooted a client and >> tried >> mounting without ping and it worked just fine. It's all >> behaving really flakily. Basically it amounts to >> sometimes >> it works and sometimes it doesn't and there doesn't seem >> to be a pattern. > > Are you sure they're not using DNS? i.e. will DNS queries > to those > hostnames resolve? Have you observed the data traffic > using tcpdump > to confirm no DNS lookups? > > Kris > > I am not sure why the client would try to use DNS to resolve backuphost if I've specified it in /etc/hosts and /etc/nsswitch.conf specifically says to look at the files first. I haven't done a tcpdump but I will try that and report back. Viren