Charles Polisher wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:49:56PM -0800, eric nelson wrote: > > ME wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, eric nelson wrote: > > > > Its not panicking. I'm doing an nfs mount of the os, and something went > > > > wrong init the initscripts. The shift-pageup is a really good idea, I didn't > > > > know about that. The problem is that so many errors spewed out that I > > > > coulldn't get far enough back. > > > > > > You doing network booting of a client with an NFS root from a server? > > > > > > We have about 80 diskless workstations doing net-booting here from the > > > same "ro" NFS export. What specific errors are being reported? > > > > First, something about mount program didn't pass correct address, then > > RPC: sendmsg returned error 101 > > nfs: RPC call returned error 101 > > .... over and over > > > > There are so many errors, that I can't scroll back. I'll need to redo the kernel > > w/ the option Peter Jay Salzman mentioned. > > > > I'm not doing the kind of mount straight from the bios, but I want to learn how to > > do that one, later. I have a boot floppy which loads a kernel, then gets an > > address from dhcp server, then mounts on nfs. I'm sure the problem is in init > > scripts, or fstab or something. > > > > It's good to know someone is doing this, it's a great approach. > > If you can snoop the wire (from another box), the trace > might diagnose the problem. Something like: > > # tcpdump -i eth0 -nvvvxl -s100 host foo > > where foo is the troubled host. Etherreal or some such utility might > be easier to interpret. Anyway, if you can watch the conversation > taking place between the host and client, the problem sometimes > jumps right out - eg., if it's an authentication error. >
I'll be able to set this up at work, once I get through some tasks of a more mundane nature. I'm sure that this approach will help understand the whole process. Appreciate the idea. ;~) > > HTH, > > Chuck Polisher > -- > The best way to get information on Usenet is not by asking a question, but > by posting inaccurate information. > > _______________________________________________ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
