Trying to understand: CH3SNAS & NFS = Help needed !
June 12, 2008
I’ve written earlier a simple howto for users with a CH3SNAS to work with NFS. UNFS is a user space implementation of the NFSv3 protocol. This is working flawlessly on the CH3SNAS with various Linux PC’s I am running (CentOS, Debian, Linux Embedded device etc.. )
but for a VMware implementation I need the READDIRPLUS procedure which is not available in UNFS. So I need to run Kernel-NFS on the CH3SNAS
Fonz fun_plug is providing Kernel NFS (enabled in the CH3SNAS) and UNFS. Installation is easy and almost fool proof.
The issue is following: on all my linux boxes (CentOS, Debian etc.. ) I get following message:
mount: mount to NFS server ‘192.168.1.60′ failed: timed out (retrying).
- rcpinfo -p 192.168.1.60 gives all correct info
- showmount -e 192.168.1.60 gives all correct exports
- rpcinfo -u 192.168.1.60 gives:
program 100005 version 1 ready and waiting
program 100005 version 2 ready and waiting
program 100005 version 3 ready and waiting
- Showmount -a 192.168.1.60 gives the mount points I ‘tried’ to use:
All mount points on 192.168.1.60:
192.168.1.100:/mnt/HD_a2
and even syslogd gives on the NFS server (CH3SNAS):
Jun 12 18:33:07 DEVELOPMENT daemon.notice mountd[1868]: authenticated mount request from 192.168.1.100:615 for /mnt/HD_a2 (/mnt/HD_a2)
- Portmap is running at server and client!!
I am totally not understanding why I get time-outs. I do not have a firewall, I do not use iptables. Today I tried in another environment the same: always the error:
mount: mount to NFS server ‘192.168.1.60′ failed: timed out (retrying).
suddenly here at home after about 20 minutes trying to mount the NFS share, the NFS server has been mounted on my local system. But when umounting and mounting again I have again same situation. In my work environment it was totally not possible (standard Debian setup and a CentOS configuration) to have the NFS share mounted. Although it is similar setup ..
So although al tools tells me that everything is correct: I am not getting any mount :-(
Is there anyone with enough NFS knowledge who can tell me why the NFS share is not mounted?


Dennis Slagers, just a guy from Holland




June 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Ik ben een linux noob, maar google liet dit zien:
http://www.sunmanagers.org/pipermail/summaries/2004-November/005883.html
misschien heb je er wat aan
June 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Hi,
I had the same problems with my CH3SNAS. Try specifying NFSv3 or NFSv2 in commandline. This litte tweak speeds up mounting a LOT. Further, try adjusting rsize and wsize on the client-side to get out maximum speed.
€: Are you using an old firmware? I can remember that NFSv3 was broken in the earlier v1.03 ones…
Delekhan
June 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Until I cannot mount it it has totally no use
maybe your commandline you use can help?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
[...] readers of this weblog have read my previous article about NFS and my issues with [...]
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Hi,
here is my fstab entry that works with the CH3SNAS:
192.168.100.4:/mnt/HD_a2/NFSRoot / nfs rw,hard,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,tcp,async,nfsvers=3 0 0
and here is my menu.lst for Grub in case you need it:
# (0) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux
root (hd0,0)
kernel /vmlinuz26 video=i810fb:vram:16,xres:1366,yres:768,hsync1:30,hsync2:85,vsync1:60,vsync2:60,accel,mtrr root=/dev/nfs nfsroot=192.168.100.4:/mnt/HD_a2/NFSRoot,v3 ip=dhcp
I hope this hlps,
Markus
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Thanks Markus..
your line is working with mount -a ..but..
still one time:
mount: mount to NFS server 192.168.1.60 failed: timed out (retrying).
I see…
it’s not mounted in a split second what you would expect…
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 am
So this error message is only being displayed once? If so and the drive mounts a second later - ignore it ;-) If not how long does it take now to mount the drive?
Anyway, you could try to edit rpc_nfsd_flags=”8″ to 16 in /ffp/start/nfsd.sh to have a better response time of the NFS Server. I did this and it speeded up NFS quite a bit.
Markus
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
that’s adding more server(s) to it ..
mmm .. I think it has to do something with dumb switches ..