Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
can't believe how widely used NFS is, because it is the source of
endless problems for me. I've never seen it work with any kind of
reliability at all. One thing I'll say for samba is that the data
actually seems to show up correctly on the other side :-).
I've had the opposite. Samba stalling and transferring at a rate slower
than I can retype a file. Samba never managing to connect to the other
side. The hassles of manually setting up each user. The hassles of
file permissions and ownership getting screwed up in transit. Compared
to NFS working without pain.
Though, I have to say that my painless NFS server is on a FC4 machine,
and that works fine. I've found I've had to manually mess with
firewalling to get it to work through anything higher than FC4.
I'm surprised you don't need to with FC4. It's actually fairly simple.
[root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx sysconfig]# cat nfs
LOCKD_TCPPORT=32768
LOCKD_UDPPORT=32788
RQUOTAD_PORT=621
MOUNTD_PORT=640
[root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx sysconfig]#
I chose the ports that were actually in use, but left it its own devices
it can choose ports of other servers yet to start. CPUS for example.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
