NFS - FreeBSD5 UFS2 serving FreeBSD4 UFS clients
Howdy, We currently have a nice beefy fBSD4 box for our main NFS server with approx 10 fBSD4 clients. We will be upgrading the NFS server soon but I can't seem to find any info on NFS compatibiltiy between 5.x and 4.x. Logic tells me that if my NFS server is running 5.x with a UFS2 filesystem that my 4.x UFS clients won't be able to mount a share from the 5.x box. Or does the NFS layer allow this? Will my 5.x box be backwards compatible for 4.x boxen and still work? Thanks in advance :) -- Jamie Heckford Network Manager Trident Microsystems Ltd. t: +44(0)1737-780790 f: +44(0)1737-771908 w: http://www.tridentmicrosystems.co.uk/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[no subject]
Susbscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jamie Heckford Network Manager Trident Microsystems Ltd. t: +44(0)1737-780790 f: +44(0)1737-771908 w: http://www.tridentmicrosystems.co.uk/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mixing fBSD 4 and 5 - NFS ACL's
Hi, I need to use the new ACL feature on one of our servers. However the data doesn't reside on the server that its being served from it is mounted via NFS. Im guessing I will need to install fBSD5 on the two servers I want to use ACL on, but will the other fBSD4 servers still be able to use NFS ok (they don't need to use ACL)?? Guess the question is can fBSD4 machines use fBSD5 NFS servers ok, and also, how stable is / does ACL even work between to fBSD5 machines using NFS? Ta, -- Jamie Heckford Network Manager Trident Microsystems Ltd. t: +44(0)1737-780790 f: +44(0)1737-771908 w: http://www.tridentmicrosystems.co.uk/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mixing fBSD 4 and 5 - NFS ACL's
Thanks Matt, I'll have a look at GEOM gate but will most likely have to wait for the NFS support. If anyone needs any help testing the NFS Server work I'll be more than happy. Jamie -Original Message- From: Matthew Seaman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 October 2004 11:10 To: Jamie Heckford Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mixing fBSD 4 and 5 - NFS ACL's On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Jamie Heckford wrote: I need to use the new ACL feature on one of our servers. However the data doesn't reside on the server that its being served from it is mounted via NFS. Im guessing I will need to install fBSD5 on the two servers I want to use ACL on, but will the other fBSD4 servers still be able to use NFS ok (they don't need to use ACL)?? Guess the question is can fBSD4 machines use fBSD5 NFS servers ok, and also, how stable is / does ACL even work between to fBSD5 machines using NFS? See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-October/039747.h tml under the 'Desired Features for 5.3-RELEASE' section: | | || Currently, MAC | | | || protections are | | | || enforced only on | | | || locally originated | | | || file system | | | || operations (VOPs), | | | || and not on RPCs | | | || generated via the | | | || NFS server. | | MAC support for | || Improvements in NFS | | NFS Server | Not done| Robert Watson | server credential | | | || handling are | | | || required to correct | | | || this problem, as | | | || well as the | | | || introduction of new | | | || entry points to | | | || properly label NFS | | | || credentials and | | | || perform enforcement | | | || properly. | So the only possibility for ACL support over NFS is going to be a 5.x release, but seeing as it hasn't been included yet, probably not 5.3-RELEASE. One possible route around that would be to use GEOM Gate -- that's a system rather like iSCSI or Linux's DRDB, where the server exports a disk device, rather than a filesystem. This is a standard part of 5.x now, and will be in 5.3-RELEASE, but it's still very new, so test carefully before putting it onto important servers. See: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-May/026768.html http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ggatecapropos=0sektion=0manp ath=FreeBSD+6.0-currentformat=html http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ggatedapropos=0sektion=0manp ath=FreeBSD+6.0-currentformat=html http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ggatelapropos=0sektion=0manp ath=FreeBSD+6.0-currentformat=html A FreeBSD 4.x machine should quite happily use a 5.x machine as a NFS server. FreeBSD 4.x has no support for GEOM Gate though. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPD and ADSL pptp line problems
I had a problem once with a certain provider using MPD for VPN over ADSL connections, have you tried experimenting with the MTU on your adapter? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arjan Knepper Sent: 11 October 2004 10:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPD and ADSL pptp line problems Hello, We 're using FreeBSD-4.10 with mpd-3.18 to connect to our ISP through a Alcatel speed touch home ISDN-ethernet modem. From time to time the connection becomes verry slow and ping -f shows packet losses up to 90 %. To recover form the losses, power cycling the modem OR stopping restarting mpd OR waiting for minutes to hours solves the packet losses. Any ideas what might cause this? And how to solve this? The Alcatel Modem firmware is up-to-date. There is absolute no problem between de modem and the FreeBSD-box. Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Arjan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PPPoEd + Poptop, problems with Win98 SE clients
Hi, I am having an odd problem with PPPoEd + Poptop. I have set the box up as a simple VPN server for Windows based clients using the builtin PPTP client. Works fine on Windows ME, 2000, XP. However.. Windows 98 is a different story. I have applied the DUN 1.4 upgrades to this machine but still no joy. My ppp.conf looks like this: Set ifaddr 194.207.93.251 194.207.93.190-194.207.93.210 255.255.255.255 Enable proxy Enable utmp Disable passwdauth Enable lqr Set cd 5! Accept dns Enable mschapv2 mppe Disable deflate pred1 Deny deflate pred1 Set mppe 128 * Set timeout 0 Set mru max 1400 Set mtu max 1400 Set mppe 128 stateless And in my pptpd.conf Speed 115200 Localip 194.207.93.251 Remoteip 194.207.93.190-210 When the Win98 SE client connects, first off it moaned about various different things. Disbaling software compression seemed to sort that out, and it managed to connect. However, when it connects it cannot communicate with anything on the 194.207.93.0/24 network. I cant even ping the inside interface of the VPN router. Does anyone have any suggestions? I would really appreciate it as otherwise im going to have to replace the BSD box with a Win2K one Which I *definatly* do not want to do!! FreeBSD version on the vpn router: FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE #2: Thu Jan 23 16:13:38 GMT 2003 Many Thanks, -- Jamie Heckford Network Manager Trident Microsystems Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44(0)1737-780790 f: +44(0)1737-771908 w: http://www.tridentmicrosystems.co.uk/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: PPPoEd + Poptop, problems with Win98 SE clients
G'Day Jamie, I use mpd in packages/ports - easy to configure, good examples in the conf files and it works with all flavours of windows. Hi Rob, Thanks very much for the info, used MPD and it works great will all versions of Windoze. There was also some pretty excellent information at this link: http://www.itga.com.au/~gnb/vpn/ Cheers :) Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD usage in safety-critical environments
Hardly reassuring from all the recent train crashes really :P - Original Message - From: Nelson, Trent . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Ted Faber' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Nelson, Trent . [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: FreeBSD usage in safety-critical environments -Original Message- From: Ted Faber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:59 PM To: Terry Lambert Cc: Nelson, Trent .; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: FreeBSD usage in safety-critical environments On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:26:14PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Life support systems require formal proofs of correctness for code; since neither Linux nor FreeBSD is formally correct, in total, you would need to be insane to deplaoy either of them as, for example, a part of an air traffic control system. I suspect that's a bad example, or that you mean an embedded aircraft control system. Ron Reisman and James Murphy gave a fine invited talk at USENIX 02 (http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix02/tech/#11am) about the growing number of UNIX components in the US ATC system. I reject the conclusion that the FAA is collectively insane for that reason. I'd have to concur. I'm working on a large rail engineering project in the UK that is implementing a two-phased deployment of a Railway Control Centre System. The first phase will be using a combination of Tru64 UNIX and Linux systems, with an investigation being taken place for the second phase to move completely to Linux. There is a huge difference between systems rated at SIL 1 and 2 (which is what ATC/rail CCS would fall under) and those rated at 3 and 4. I was not referring to life-support or life-critical systems, as these will almost certainly be a proprietary hardware/software package that has been certified and accredited to a high level of safety integrity. What I was referring to were systems running on UNIX that control and interface to these safety-critical systems. For railway, Control Centres may suggest an erroneous route that would result in two trains colliding (although such a system will be commissioned on the basis that it wouldn't allow such a route to be suggested), but the 'vital', safety-critical interlocking would prevent such a route being set. The resulting safety-integrity level for the Control Centre would be SIL 2. The analogy between ATCs embedded aircraft control systems isn't as tight as there isn't a physical interface between the two (well, at least as far as I know). The deployment of FreeBSD, or any BSD variant, (or ANYTHING other than Linux) in environments such as this, is what I was originally getting at. Oh, and Terry, I think you'd be astonished if I informed you of how many rail control systems in the US and around the world use either Linux or some of the commercial variants such as Tru64 UNIX or Solaris. Ted Faber[EMAIL PROTECTED] USC/ISI Computer Scientist http://www.isi.edu/~faber (310) 448-9190 PGP Keys: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc Regards, Trent. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message -- Message scanned for viruses and dangerous content by http://www.newnet.co.uk/av/ and believed to be clean To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
