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

Re: Disabling NFSv4 on Debian Squeeze

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> El 2011-11-22 a las 07:50 +0200, Israel Bravo escribió:
>> On 11/21/2011 07:34 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> > El 2011-11-21 a las 08:51 +0200, Israel Bravo escribió:
>> >
>> >> On 11/20/2011 05:27 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:42:08 +0200, Israel Bravo wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> How can I disable the NFSv4 on Debian Squeeze (without recompiling the
>> >>>> kernel)?
>> >>> (...)
>> >>>
>> >>> Unless I have read the man page in the wrong way, this can be done from "/
>> >>> etc/default/nfs-kernel-server" by adjusting "RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--no-nfs-
>> >>> version 4" value accordingly.
>> >>             Yes, but it doesn't help.  The directories are still exported  with "vers=4"
>> > Hum... and can't you export the shares with "vers=3" or something like
>> > that? :-?
>>             That is the problem:  I get "exportfs: /etc/exports:1: unknown keyword "vers=3"
> "Unknow keyword" is like the parameter "vers=3" cannot be used in that
> file ("/etc/exports"). Maybe is that is has to be specified from the
> client side when mounting the NFS share.

"nfsvers=3"/"vers=3" can only be used, AFAIK, on the client side,
either with mount or in fstab. nfsv4 won't be disabled on the server.
This could be enough for the OP though.

I've been meaning to look into you "RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--no-nfs-version 4"
suggestion but haven't had the time.

AFAIU, mountd isn't used for helping a client mount an nfsv4 export
(unlike nfsv3) but it is used for the export (which is why you don't
need to poke a hole in your firewall for mountd if you're using nfsv4

I wanted to set up a VM with your option above and see whether an
nfsv4 mount option exists (and fails) or whether it simply doesn't
exist. _MOST_ likely the latter but I'd like to see it to believe it.

On RHEL/Fedora systems, there's an "RPCNFSDARGS" for nfsd to be
launched with "--no-nfs-version 4".

Reply to: