Re: mount_nfs: can't get net id for host
On 24 mar 2012, at 09:09, Karl-Arne Gjersøyen wrote: > Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała tom...@napierala.org > 192.168.1.35/24 ubuntu This line is wrong, you should only have IP and hostname, e.g.: 192.168.1.35ubuntu Regards, -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: mount_nfs: can't get net id for host
On 23 mar 2012, at 18:31, Karl-Arne Gjersøyen wrote: > Hello. I export /home/BackUP from ubuntu server 11.10 and try to mount > it on Mac OS X 10.6.0 but receive this error: > > mount_nfs: can't get net id for host > > I have search in google and there they talk about write the server ip > and host name in /etc/hosts on my mac client box. > Well, I have done that and restarted the client computer, but still I > got the same error message. > > Do you know what I need to do? This is not related to Ubuntu really ;) Paste contents of /etc/hosts on Mac and command you are using to mount that share. Regards, -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: OpenStack vs Eucalyptus
On 2011-06-20, at 12:58, Ahmed Kamal wrote: >> >> Eucalyptu is more mature but development stalled. OS is very promising, but >> unstable, and I wouldn't consider it production ready. If you are >> experienced sysadmin, and not affraid of some manual sql etc. you might try >> it. >> >> pz > I wouldn't really Eucalyptus' development is stalled. V3 is coming out soon > (couple of months maybe?) and it brings along pretty good features (Cloud > components HA finally yaay). OpenStack IMO leans towards large scale > deployments (think ISPs) .. while Eucalyptus IMO is more mature today, and > leans towards Enterprise customers You are absolutely right, but the problem with Eucalyptus is that I wouldn't call their development model "open". On the other side OpenStack is backed by really large and prominent companies, and it's development is fast and direction is deterministic ;) Regards, -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: OpenStack vs Eucalyptus
On 2011-06-19, at 03:46, Adon Metcalfe wrote: > Maybe try proxmox? The latest KVM kernel they use is based on Ubuntu 2.6.35 > though its a Debian Lenny based distro > > Decent web interface, always track latest KVM Proxmox is not cloud technology. It's hypervisor with web gui. Regards, -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: OpenStack vs Eucalyptus
On 2011-06-18, at 18:44, Jesus arteche wrote: > Hi, > > I have to build a private cloud, I have experience with Eucalyptus...and our > apps are in production in Amazon...but now Open Stack is there...someone has > experience working with both...can you tell me something to decide one or > another??? Eucalyptu is more mature but development stalled. OS is very promising, but unstable, and I wouldn't consider it production ready. If you are experienced sysadmin, and not affraid of some manual sql etc. you might try it. pz -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierała -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
