From: Ion Badulescu Subject: Re: mountd through a firewall? Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:10:51 -0500 (EST) Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3E5503F7.80809@motorola.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from ip64-48-93-2.z93-48-64.customer.algx.net ([64.48.93.2] helo=ns1.limegroup.com) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18luDw-0006ew-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:11:05 -0800 To: Robert Rati In-Reply-To: <3E5503F7.80809@motorola.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Robert Rati wrote: > Actually, I mispoke in my first statement, sorry. mountd isn't creating > two instances on the system, but it's opening 4 ports from the same > instance. I thought that maybe mountd was opening a pair of ports for > each exported filesystem, but my /etc/exports is bare, exportfs shows no > exported file systems, so why is mountd using 4 ports? Even if I share > a directory, mountd is still using 4 ports. That's the expected behavior, yes. > Is there a way to control the port range mountd will use? If not, do > you know the range mountd will use? man rpc.mountd, look for "-p". Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs