Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:49:14 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: obrien@NUXI.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Even more interesting NFS problems.. Message-ID: <19990131024914.C67786@relay.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <10965.917762686@zippy.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 10:04:46PM -0800 References: <19990130200958.B66257@relay.nuxi.com> <10965.917762686@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, to be consistent with the state of world WRT NFS. Or at least with > > the leader -- Solaris. This has been the default in 3.0-C since the > > am-utils import. > > Yeah, well, amd is a whole other ball of wax. That's clearly broken > in both 3.0-stable and 4.0-current Why is it clearly broken? proto=tcp,vers=3 is what is in 3.0-RELEASE, Amd in 3.0 works for many. I won't defend that the new Amd works the best with us, but then neither did the old Amd. > and we're going to have to revert the last set of changes fairly soon, > it's on my TODO list of things to deal with. I think we need to do more testing in the environments Amd currently gives trouble to determine if the problem is with using TCP or version 3 of NFS. I still question if there still are problems in our NFS (even with hard mounts) implementation. Also, is the problem FreeBSD between two FreeBSD boxes, or a FreeBSD and say Solaris box. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com -or- obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990131024914.C67786>