Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:40:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS comments Message-ID: <199704181640.KAA22251@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970418173155.428F-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> References: <199704181452.IAA21069@rocky.mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970418173155.428F-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I noticed Doug making some fixes in -current for some bugs, do any of > > these also apply to 2.2.1. Also, I think I've figured out why I'm not > > having any NFS problems on my 2.2.1 box. Does NFS default to V3 if I > > use it in /etc/fstab file and the box supports it? My servers are > > solaris 2.5.1 boxes, and I've not had *any* problems whatsoever beating > > them up from FreeBSD clients. Does that ring any bells? > > Some of the kernel fixes are relavent to 2.2 and all the user fixes are > relavent. I was planning to let them soak for a few days in current > before updating the 2.2 branch. Great! > NFS will now default to V3 if not otherwise specified in /etc/fstab (with > my latest change to mount_nfs). Before today, it would use V2 unless the > nfsv3 option was present. So my NFS mounts to the Solaris boxes are using NFS V2 now then since my box is running 2.2.1? Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704181640.KAA22251>