From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 17 23:02:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB816DB3 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:02:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9ADD86 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7383B00B for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:02:44 -0800 (PST) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WTF? RPCPROG_NFS: RPC: Program not registered In-Reply-To: <670072237.3089090.1361139025074.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:02:44 -0800 Message-ID: <19262.1361142164@server1.tristatelogic.com> X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:02:49 -0000 In message <670072237.3089090.1361139025074.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>, Rick Macklem wrote: >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> In message >> <689563329.3076797.1361028594307.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>, >> Rick Macklem wrote: >> >> >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> nfs_server_flags="-h 192.168.1.2" >> >Add -t to these flags. It appears that the default is UDP only. >> >> >> YESSSS! Thank you. That did the trick alright. >> >> I gather than in the 9.x series, there is a new nfs server thing, yes? >> >> And I further gather than this one needs to new -t flag, yes? >> >> (Sigh. My own feeling is that tcp support should have been enabled by >> default... as in the past.) >> >Nope. The old server used "-t" as well. The settings in >/etc/default/rc.conf for >nfs_server_flags="-t -u -n 4" > >You overrode those when you set nfs_server_flags. Doh! Yes, it appears you are 100% correct. In the past, I had never before had *any* kind of nfs_server_flags= line in my /etc/rc.conf file. After my recent upgrade, I put one in, just to limit the interfaces to which NFS service would be provided, and apparently, in so doing, I utterly hobbled NFS service generally. That outcome certainly did not follow the "principal of least surprise". Oh well. All's well that ends well. Regards, rfg