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

Re: NFS mounting errors



* Michael Heldebrant <Heldebrant.Michael@mayo.edu> [08/07/01 10:06] wrote:
> Is this a dhcp or static machine?  I'm wondering if a default route is
> missing before the first mount and gets put in right afterwards.  Sounds
> odd with the drivers compiled in.  What card is it?

It's a static machine with a 3Com 3c905b card.  I thought that 2.4.x
kernels automatically took care of the routing tables?

Thanks,
    Max
    
> On 07 Aug 2001 10:02:49 -0700, Max Kamenetsky wrote:
> > * Michael Heldebrant <Heldebrant.Michael@mayo.edu> [08/07/01 09:59] wrote:
> > > Are your network drivers compiled in or modules?  If modules are they
> > > autoloaded in /etc/modules?
> > 
> > They're compiled in.  I can see the network starting up way before the
> > portmapper and NFS mount requests are issued.  Besides, the strange
> > thing is that the first mount request fails but the second one and all
> > the ones thereafter (which happen immediately after the first) always
> > succeed.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >     Max
> > 
> > > On 07 Aug 2001 09:47:53 -0700, Max Kamenetsky wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >     Whenever I reboot my system, I get the following error from
> > > > /etc/init.d/mountnfs.sh:
> > > > 
> > > > RPC: unable to receive, errno: no route to host
> > > > 
> > > > The result is that some NFS mount requests fail.  The funny thing is
> > > > that this happens for only the first directory I try to mount from a
> > > > particular host.  For example, if my /etc/fstab has entries
> > > > 
> > > > somehost:/dir1 /dir1 nfs rw,hard,intr,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,mountvers=3 0 0
> > > > somehost:/dir2 /dir2 nfs rw,hard,intr,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,mountvers=3 0 0
> > > >     
> > > > then the dir1 line will result in an error but the dir2 line will
> > > > succeed.
> > > > 
> > > > Has anyone seen anything similar and been able to debug it?  I do have
> > > > entries in /etc/hosts for all hosts from which I'm doing NFS mounts.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     Max
> > 
> 
> 



Reply to: