[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RPC call returned error 111



Hi,

I just read the guide of ltsp, and they said something about this. Do you
have tcpwrappers enabled (do not ask me what that is)? If so (or just
try) to add in /etc/hosts.allow:
portmap:	192.168.0.

This allows portmapper access to all computers in 192.168.0.0 network.

Hope it helps,
Sebastiaan


On 17 Feb 2001, Norman Walsh wrote:

> Sorry to be a pest. Are there really no other suggestions for fixing
> this problem? Upgrading net-tools didn't help...
> 
> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> | I recently did and update/upgrade for the latest unstable (yeah, yeah,
> | silly me :-), and now I get the following messages when I attempt to
> | start an nfs server on that machine:
> | 
> |   portmap: RPC call returned error 111
> |   RPC: task of released request still queued!
> |   RPC: (task is on xprt_pending)
> |   lockd_up: makesock failed, error=-111!
> |   ...
> |   lockdsvc: Connection refused
> | 
> | Can anyone point me in the right direction to resolve these? I'd
> | really like to mount those drives again :-)
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> -- 
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Nothing is more depressing than
> http://nwalsh.com/            | consolations based on the necessity of
>                               | evil, the uselessness of remedies, the
>                               | inevitability of fate, the order of
>                               | Providence, or the misery of the human
>                               | condition. It is ridiculous to try to
>                               | alleviate misfortune by observing that
>                               | we are born to be
>                               | miserable.--Montesquieu
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 



Reply to: