I've got an nfs server (gentoo of course) and I mount my home directory on my 
workstation. Here's fstab:

fs1:/home/rcole  /home/rcole   nfs 
rw,intr,nfsvers=3,hard,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,owner        0 0

and my exports on my server is like so:

/home/rcole     ws3(rw,async)

And I get this on the workstation dmesg output:

nsm_mon_unmon: rpc failed, status=-13
lockd: cannot monitor 192.168.0.7
lockd: failed to monitor 192.168.0.7

0.7 is the server IP. 

When I boot the client system (ws3) and it's at the X login screen and I check 
the dmesg output no error messages like this are there. All nfs mounts are 
mounted at this point too. The moment I log in and the client starts 
accessing that nfs mount I start getting errors in dmesg output but 
EVERYTHING WORKS!

I have zero problems on the client accessing files, saving files, etc.

I have owner on the fstab line on the client because I want only me (rcole) to 
be able to access the files in /home/rcole. I'm trying to create a enviroment 
much like you would have in a business with private home directories, etc and 
I couldn't see any other way to do it unless I create a group for each user 
and change all the ownerships of rcole's files to rcole.rcole and drop the 
users group use. But then again I want that for a public shared directory 
where I can see who created what yet everyone has access to all files in that 
directory (so no all_squash setting). All the stuff I'm finding on that 
relate to samba and I'm talking all linux clients and server so no samba 
needed. If anyone has any ideas on this second thing please let me know.

Anyway a google search turned up tons of hits and nearly all point to statd. 
Well rpc.statd is running on the server but not on the client. Is there 
something I need to do/set in gentoo to make it load up rpc.statd 
automatically? Did something change recently in gentoo to cause this? It use 
to work with no errors in dmesg.

If I set nolock on that mount in fstab the errors go away. Since this is a 
"private" unshared directory this should be ok right? 

Thanks,
Robert



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to