From: "Talpey, Thomas" Subject: Re: Permission denied when mounting NFS (was okay before) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:23:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1222445161.10150.4.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "howard chen" Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:44928 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752372AbYIZQYF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:24:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1222445161.10150.4.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Have you tried my suggestion of replacing "10.10.10.2" with "*" in your server's exports, as a test? It will tell us whether you have an IP aliasing issue. As for TCP, no special mount parameters are required. The timers and algorithms are all adaptive and preconfiguring them is often counterproductive. You still haven't shown "uname -a" for your client, but if it's anything recent, you don't even need to specify tcp, it's the default. Tom. At 12:13 PM 9/26/2008, howard chen wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks all for your input first. > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Trond Myklebust > wrote: > >> What does >> >> 'rpcinfo -p 10.10.10.1' > > program vers proto port > 100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper > 100000 2 udp 111 portmapper > 100021 1 udp 32773 nlockmgr > 100021 3 udp 32773 nlockmgr > 100021 4 udp 32773 nlockmgr > 100021 1 tcp 32779 nlockmgr > 100021 3 tcp 32779 nlockmgr > 100021 4 tcp 32779 nlockmgr > 100024 1 udp 883 status > 100024 1 tcp 886 status > 100011 1 udp 821 rquotad > 100011 2 udp 821 rquotad > 100011 1 tcp 824 rquotad > 100011 2 tcp 824 rquotad > 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs > 100003 3 udp 2049 nfs > 100003 4 udp 2049 nfs > 100003 2 tcp 2049 nfs > 100003 3 tcp 2049 nfs > 100003 4 tcp 2049 nfs > 100005 1 udp 891 mountd > 100005 1 tcp 894 mountd > 100005 2 udp 891 mountd > 100005 2 tcp 894 mountd > 100005 3 udp 891 mountd > 100005 3 tcp 894 mountd > > >> give you? Also, >> >> 'showmount -e 10.10.10.1' >> > > >Export list for 10.10.10.1 >/data0/tmp 10.10.10.2 > > > > >> That depends. In my experience, the difference in performance on an >> unloaded network, then UDP will outperform TCP by ~10%. However, if you >> have a heavily loaded network with lots of dropped packets, then TCP >> will usually give much better performance than UDP. > >Good to know! I will definitely have a test, any parameters are also >recommend together with TCP so I can do a fair benchmark? > > >Thank you again.