Configuration for NFSv3 only?

Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

Hello all.

What I would like to do is configure my server and clients to use NFSv3
only.  I'm running recent 2.6 kernels, e.g. 2.6.12 .  I have read the
FAQ on nfs.sourceforge.net .

My kernel on the server is configured for Providing NFS3 client and
server support.  My kernel on the test client is configured for NFS3
client support.

My init script on the server is giving rpc.mountd the "-N 1 -N 2"
command-line options.

Running "rpcinfo -p" on the server gives:

    100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
    100024    1   udp  32768  status
    100024    1   tcp  32769  status
    100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
    100003    3   udp   2049  nfs
    100003    2   tcp   2049  nfs
    100003    3   tcp   2049  nfs
    100021    1   udp  32770  nlockmgr
    100021    3   udp  32770  nlockmgr
    100021    4   udp  32770  nlockmgr
    100021    1   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
    100021    3   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
    100021    4   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
    100005    3   udp    687  mountd
    100005    3   tcp    690  mountd

On the client, trying to perform a "mount -o vers=3D3 <server
IP>:<exportname> <local mountpoint>" gives the error "NFSv3 not
supported!" and the mount fails.  If I remove the options to
rpc.mountd,   and do not specify "-o vers=3D3" on the client side, then
mountd listens for protocol versions 1 and 2, and the mount succeeds.

This leads me to the following questions:

1. Should "rpcinfo -p" list a version 3 for portmapper in order for
NFSv3 to be successfully used, or should portmapper only be at version
2 even for the NFSv3 protocol?

2. Is it possible to tell the other NFS-related daemons to only listen
for NFSv3, e.g. "status" only seems to be speaking version 1, the nfs
daemon versions 2 and 3, and "nlockmgr" versions 1, 3, and 4.

3. Any suggestions on how to troubleshoot this problem?

Thanks.


	=09
__________________________________=20
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile=20
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.=20
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Trond Myklebust]

m=C3=A5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 13:40 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:

> On the client, trying to perform a "mount -o vers=3D3 <server
> IP>:<exportname> <local mountpoint>" gives the error "NFSv3 not
> supported!" and the mount fails.  If I remove the options to
> rpc.mountd,   and do not specify "-o vers=3D3" on the client side, then
> mountd listens for protocol versions 1 and 2, and the mount succeeds.

Sounds like the client doesn't have NFSv3 support compiled in. What does
your .config file say?

Cheers,
  Trond



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

Hello, and thanks for the response.

The applicable kernel .config file for the client has
"CONFIG_NFS_V3=3Dy", which is as I had stated in the original message.

It does not have CONFIG_NFSD_V3 set, however.  But I don't think the
client should need that, correct?

Thanks.

--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:

> m=E5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 13:40 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:
>=20
> > On the client, trying to perform a "mount -o vers=3D3 <server
> > IP>:<exportname> <local mountpoint>" gives the error "NFSv3 not
> > supported!" and the mount fails.  If I remove the options to
> > rpc.mountd,   and do not specify "-o vers=3D3" on the client side,
> then
> > mountd listens for protocol versions 1 and 2, and the mount
> succeeds.
>=20
> Sounds like the client doesn't have NFSv3 support compiled in. What
> does
> your .config file say?
>=20
> Cheers,
>   Trond


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20
http://mail.yahoo.com=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Trond Myklebust]

m=C3=A5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 14:17 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:
> Hello, and thanks for the response.
>=20
> The applicable kernel .config file for the client has
> "CONFIG_NFS_V3=3Dy", which is as I had stated in the original message.
>=20
> It does not have CONFIG_NFSD_V3 set, however.  But I don't think the
> client should need that, correct?

It shouldn't, no.

Try combining a debugging dump ('echo "1" >/proc/sys/sunrpc/nfs_debug')
with a tcpdump on the client and see what that gives you.

Cheers,
  Trond



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:

> Try combining a debugging dump ('echo "1"
> >/proc/sys/sunrpc/nfs_debug')
> with a tcpdump on the client and see what that gives you.

Well, with the debugging enabled, in the syslog messages I get:

NFS: NFSv3 not supported
nfs warning: mount version older than kernel
NFS: mount program didn't pass remote address!

I captured the packets via tcpdump, but how do you suggest I go about
extracting useful information from them?  I haven't done any
on-the-wire protcol examination before.

Also, would you mind answering the questions I had asked earlier,
namely what to make of the versions listed for portmapper and status --
should these be "3" in order for NFSv3 to work, or is NFSv3 expecting
their versions to be just "2" and "1" respectively?  By "version" I am
referring to the output in the "version" column of the rpcinfo output.

Thank you.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20
http://mail.yahoo.com=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Trond Myklebust]

m=C3=A5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 15:30 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:

> NFS: NFSv3 not supported

Is this being issued by the mount program?

> nfs warning: mount version older than kernel
> NFS: mount program didn't pass remote address!

The bug appears to be in the mount program. Which version are you using?

> Also, would you mind answering the questions I had asked earlier,
> namely what to make of the versions listed for portmapper and status --
> should these be "3" in order for NFSv3 to work, or is NFSv3 expecting
> their versions to be just "2" and "1" respectively?  By "version" I am
> referring to the output in the "version" column of the rpcinfo output.

Those numbers are unrelated to the NFS protocol version. statd version 1
and portmapper version 2 should work fine.

Cheers,
  Trond



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

Well, I tried a variety of things, including upgrading from "mount"
version 2.12i to 2.12q, and nfs-utils 1.0.6 to 1.0.7 .  I believe
upgrading nfs-utils (on the client side) allowed the mount to take
place  successfully.

However, now, when I run "umount", I get the message:

Bad UMNT RPC: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low version =3D 3, high
version =3D 3

What could be causing this?  This happened before and after I upgraded
the server to 1.0.7 as well.  When I mount the NFS volume, I also get a
warning that the mount version is older than the kernel -- I presume
this can be safely ignored?

Lastly,

--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:

> Those numbers are unrelated to the NFS protocol version. statd
> version 1
> and portmapper version 2 should work fine.

Might I kindly suggest that this be added to the FAQ on the nfs.sf.net
homepage?  It could potentially alleviate confusion for NFS newcomers
like me.

Thanks for the help.


	=09
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20
=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Trond Myklebust]

m=C3=A5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 20:55 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:
> However, now, when I run "umount", I get the message:
>=20
> Bad UMNT RPC: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low version =3D 3, high
> version =3D 3

That error can be ignored. Both client and server will continue to work
fine even if the umount RPC call fails.

The reason for the error is that the standard umount program incorrectly
always uses mount version 2 (i.e. the NFSv2 mount protocol)
since /etc/mtab doesn't record the mount version used. There is, btw, a
fix for this in the mount program carried by Redhat/Fedora.

Cheers,
  Trond



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:

> m=E5 den 25.07.2005 Klokka 20:55 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:
> > However, now, when I run "umount", I get the message:
> >=20
> > Bad UMNT RPC: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low version =3D 3, high
> > version =3D 3
>=20
> That error can be ignored. Both client and server will continue to
> work
> fine even if the umount RPC call fails.
>=20
> The reason for the error is that the standard umount program
> incorrectly
> always uses mount version 2 (i.e. the NFSv2 mount protocol)
> since /etc/mtab doesn't record the mount version used. There is, btw,
> a
> fix for this in the mount program carried by Redhat/Fedora.

I will file a bug report with my distribution/vendor .  Is there any
point in filing a bug report with the maintainers of util-linux ?


	=09
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20
=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Trond Myklebust]

ty den 26.07.2005 Klokka 15:52 (-0700) skreiv Bill Johnstone:
> > The reason for the error is that the standard umount program
> > incorrectly
> > always uses mount version 2 (i.e. the NFSv2 mount protocol)
> > since /etc/mtab doesn't record the mount version used. There is, btw,
> > a
> > fix for this in the mount program carried by Redhat/Fedora.
> 
> I will file a bug report with my distribution/vendor .  Is there any
> point in filing a bug report with the maintainers of util-linux ?

It is really my fault for not pushing the changes upstream, so it is
probably not reasonable to annoy Andries any more than necessary. Just
keep bugging me every now and then until they appear...

Cheers,
  Trond



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

I apologize, I did not read Peter Staubach's response before sending my
last followup.

--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:

> Try combining a debugging dump ('echo "1"
> >/proc/sys/sunrpc/nfs_debug')
> with a tcpdump on the client and see what that gives you.
>=20
> Cheers,
>   Trond


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20
http://mail.yahoo.com=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Peter Staubach]

Bill Johnstone wrote:

>Hello all.
>
>What I would like to do is configure my server and clients to use NFSv3
>only.  I'm running recent 2.6 kernels, e.g. 2.6.12 .  I have read the
>FAQ on nfs.sourceforge.net .
>
>My kernel on the server is configured for Providing NFS3 client and
>server support.  My kernel on the test client is configured for NFS3
>client support.
>
>My init script on the server is giving rpc.mountd the "-N 1 -N 2"
>command-line options.
>
>Running "rpcinfo -p" on the server gives:
>
>    100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
>    100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
>    100024    1   udp  32768  status
>    100024    1   tcp  32769  status
>    100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
>    100003    3   udp   2049  nfs
>    100003    2   tcp   2049  nfs
>    100003    3   tcp   2049  nfs
>    100021    1   udp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100021    3   udp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100021    4   udp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100021    1   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100021    3   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100021    4   tcp  32770  nlockmgr
>    100005    3   udp    687  mountd
>    100005    3   tcp    690  mountd
>
>On the client, trying to perform a "mount -o vers=3 <server
>IP>:<exportname> <local mountpoint>" gives the error "NFSv3 not
>supported!" and the mount fails.  If I remove the options to
>rpc.mountd,   and do not specify "-o vers=3" on the client side, then
>mountd listens for protocol versions 1 and 2, and the mount succeeds.
>
>This leads me to the following questions:
>
>1. Should "rpcinfo -p" list a version 3 for portmapper in order for
>NFSv3 to be successfully used, or should portmapper only be at version
>2 even for the NFSv3 protocol?
>

The answer to this question is that the portmapper protocol is completely
separate from the NFS and related protocols such as nlockmgr and mountd.

There are newer versions of the protocol, 10000, which are now called 
rpcbind.

But, the short answer, is that portmapper, version 2, is fine for these 
purposes.

    Thanx...

       ps


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

--- Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com> wrote:

> The answer to this question is that the portmapper protocol is
> completely
> separate from the NFS and related protocols such as nlockmgr and
> mountd.
>=20
> There are newer versions of the protocol, 10000, which are now called
>=20
> rpcbind.
>=20
> But, the short answer, is that portmapper, version 2, is fine for
> these=20
> purposes.

Does this separation of versions also apply to "status"?  The version
given for that both on the client and server sides is "1".

Is that OK for NFSv3 operation?

Thanks.


	=09
__________________________________=20
Do you Yahoo!?=20
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.=20
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Peter Staubach]

Bill Johnstone wrote:

>--- Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The answer to this question is that the portmapper protocol is
>>completely
>>separate from the NFS and related protocols such as nlockmgr and
>>mountd.
>>
>>There are newer versions of the protocol, 10000, which are now called
>>
>>rpcbind.
>>
>>But, the short answer, is that portmapper, version 2, is fine for
>>these 
>>purposes.
>>    
>>
>
>Does this separation of versions also apply to "status"?  The version
>given for that both on the client and server sides is "1".
>
>Is that OK for NFSv3 operation?
>

Hi.

Yes, version 1 for the status protocol is also fine and is not related 
to the
version of NFS, either 2 or 3, being used.  The NFS version 4 protocol is
self contained and does not use either the nlockmgr (network lock manager),
the mount, or the status protocols as part of the support required for it.

A little bit of information --

NFS version 2 uses either MOUNT versions 1 or 2.  The difference between
MOUNT version 1 and MOUNT version 2 is the addition of an operation to
retrieve POSIX pathconf information.

NFS version 2 uses either NLOCKMGR versions 1 or 3.  The difference between
versions 1 and 3 is the addition of some primitives for file sharing, ala
DOS.

NFS version 3 uses MOUNT version 3.  This version of the MOUNT protocol is
similar to the MOUNT version 1 protocol, but returns NFS version 3 file
handles instead of NFS version 2 file handles.

NFS version 3 uses NLOCKMGR version 4.  This version of the NLOCKMGR
protocol is similar to the NLOCKMGR version 3 protocol, but assumes that
the owner handle encapsulates an NFS version 3 file handle instead of an
NFS version 2 filehandle.

You might also notice two versions of a protocol called NFS_ACL.  This
protocol was designed in order to handle POSIX style ACLs.  It also
contains some extensions to handle generalized extended attributes.
In the marketplace, certain implementations of NFS version 2 will also
support NFS_ACL version 2.  Certain implementations of NFS version 3
will also support NFS_ACL version 3.  The corresponding version of NFS
uses the corresponding version of the NFS_ACL protocol.

There is support for the NFS_ACL version 3 protocol available in some
versions of Linux.

--

I hope that this is helpful.

       ps


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only?

[Bill Johnstone]

Hello.

--- Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com> wrote:

> Yes, version 1 for the status protocol is also fine and is not
> related=20
> to the
> version of NFS, either 2 or 3, being used.  The NFS version 4
> protocol is
> self contained and does not use either the nlockmgr (network lock
> manager),
> the mount, or the status protocols as part of the support required
> for it.
>=20
> A little bit of information --

[Excellent info snipped]

>=20
> I hope that this is helpful.
>=20
>        ps

Yes, absolutely, that was very informative and helpful!  Again, may I
please suggest that the information in your message, which I'm replying
to, be added to the FAQ on the Linux-NFS homepage on
nfs.sourceforge.net?  If I need to file a request to have this done,
just tell me where to go.

Thanks for all the help and information, Peter and Trond.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20
http://mail.yahoo.com=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7477&alloc_id=3D16492&op=3Dclic=
k
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs