From: "howard chen" Subject: Re: Permission denied when mounting NFS (was okay before) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:57:32 +0800 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Talpey, Thomas" Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.30]:43735 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752099AbYIZP5e (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:57:34 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so173719ywe.1 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:57:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > At 11:05 AM 9/26/2008, howard chen wrote: > You didn't indicate what the client and server were, btw. client is 3, as I see when mount with verbose option: ... mount: trying xxxx prog 100003 vers 3 prot udp port 2049 server should be also 3, default by CentOS 4.4, 64bit > > Do you have multiple interfaces on the client? If the client routing > originates from a different address than 10.10.10.2, then the server > will deny it because you have specified a numerical address. Yes, both servers have interface for public IP, but as I can see the 10.10.10.2 in /var/log/message of NFS server, so I think routing is ok. > This isn't the source of the permissions error, but why are you doing > a UDP mount, and with only three retries? Generally, TCP will perform > better, and more robustly. Also, the "noatime" option is a no-op for > the NFS client (servers are in charge of maintaining atime). I agree TCP is more robust, but isn't UDP will have a better performance? Thanks.