NFS Help
Pages: 1 2
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
I am trying to connect to my Synology NAS with NFS, but the connection fails with error ‘RPC communication failed on mount (RPC Service not available on remote host (not registered))’ As far as I can see, NFS is enabled on the NAS, so can anyone offer any clues where I should be looking? Note that I have the User/pw set as for my (working) LanMan and LanMan98 connections, but I have left authenticator blank as I have no idea what should be in there (even having read the UG)! |
John Williams (567) 768 posts |
There are a lot of unintended duplicate postings, and I wonder if they are actually caused by a lack of bounce-control on the RISCOS Open server input rather than user error. Perhaps Andrew, Keeper of the Beast, might consider if there is anything to be done that end! I feel that people are blaming themselves or their systems for something which isn’t their fault! |
Colin (478) 2433 posts |
I think they are caused when you click on save reply and nothing happens because the site occasionally takes a longgggggggggggggg time to respond. The natural reaction is to click save reply again because you think the click didn’t work. When the site finally responds you see that every click was accepted so have multiple copies. |
Rick Murray (539) 13404 posts |
Or gives up responding at all, leading to a long wait followed by the browser saying “I give up”. The thing is, posting is a two action process. Your data is sent to the server, and the server then replies with an updated page. It seems to be the second part that fails (and not just in response to postings, I have seen it quite a bit recently). Here’s a tip for you. Don’t refresh or resend. Open a new tab/window first and see if you can call up the recent posts (I keep it bookmarked). You may well see your reply is already there. |
John Williams (567) 768 posts |
OK – but could there not be a repeat-click delay to avoid this? It happens so often, and were it not for Dave with suitable credentials, the forum could be swamped with duplicate postings! Something to look into? |
Dave Higton (1515) 3404 posts |
If one of your postings ever gets duplicated, and you’ve definitely only clicked once, then I’d start to believe it. In the meantime…
… that’s the explanation that I believe.
What he said. |
Dave Higton (1515) 3404 posts |
You’re right, I can’t resist the urge to tidy up after these events. |
Steffen Huber (91) 1945 posts |
Look at the security stuff in your NAS. Usually, there is a way to do NFS with “no security” where you use the uid and gid to “authenticate”. In Sunfish, you need to select “no PCNFSD” or something similar. I think typically NASes only offer Kerberos for “true” authentication, which will not play well with Sunfish, which only supports pcnfsd. All IIRC of course. |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2100 posts |
If you’re in Omni rather than Sunfish then you’ll want a username of “nobody”, with the password and authenticator fields blank. That’ll make it log in without trying to use pcnfsd. |
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
I am trying to use NFS, not Sunfish. UID I assume is UserName, but what gid, pcnfsd, Kereberos, and true authorisation are I have no idea, sorry. Surely using ‘nobody’ means that there is no security? Sounds like a bloody great loophole if that works! I will try it, but I want all my NAS mounts to be only available to specific user/password combinations as known to the NAS (as they are with LanMan & LanMan98). Edit: I have now tried ‘nobody’ and it fails with ‘Insufficient access’ which I am quite glad about! |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2100 posts |
UID and Username are different. If I understand things correctly: On a Unix machine (which is where NFS comes from), each user account on the system has a numeric UID (user ID) and GID (group ID). Traditionally you’d have an authentication server running pcnfsd which, when presented with a username and password, would return the correct UID and GID. The NFS client would then “tag” its operations with these numbers. If you set the username to “nobody” then OmniNFS will use a default UID/GID pair without involving/requiring an authentication server. On my personal Mac I’ve taken the easy way out and effectively disabled authentication, but I’d love to get it running properly at some point. I’m not familiar with Kerberos so it looks like I might need to do some reading. It appears that the ideal solution would be to add Kerberos support to OmniNFS but that’s probably much harder than it sounds! |
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
Thanks Chris – that is clearer now. Any offers on what the error ‘RPC communication failed on mount (RPC Service not available on remote host (not registered))’ means? |
Steve Pampling (1551) 7932 posts |
Here’s a tip for you. Don’t refresh or resend. Open a new tab/window first and see if you can call up the recent posts (I keep it bookmarked). You may well see your reply is already there. Totally agree. I decided quite some while back to do what I do at work when diagnosing response time/failure problems – sit back wait/go get a coffee/do something else – go look again in a short while. Mostly these things tend to be under-specc’d hardware1 or non-optimal software routines2 with the latter tending to be the most common these days. I’ve no doubt the long term RO users will relate to the idea that decent programming of efficient routines is a better idea than assuming someone will put in a faster processor.
How many years working as a techie Dave? The urge to make things right/better…3
Yup. Good idea, large task 1Anyone ever looked at the Windows hardware requirements on each successive update and thought that the phrase “runs on” ought to be “will sort of work on if you wait long enough”? Windows is just a well known target. |
Colin (478) 2433 posts |
This has never worked for me. When the forum goes slow all entry points to the forum are also slow. During this time when accessing the forum is blocked I can access non forum pages without problems. |
Steffen Huber (91) 1945 posts |
IIRC, NFS is heavily based on the concept of a “Remote Procedure Call” aka RPC. Including the whole authentication stuff. There is some clever handshaking going on with a portmapper that is asked for the port of the mount daemon before the mount operation, maybe this RPC fails (or the mount call itself, which is also a RPC obviously). So a rough guess: the mount daemon has not registered itself with the portmapper, and hence the RPC to mount fails. On the other hand, I would not trust a plain error message to give out sensible information that helps diagnosing anything… Maybe you could link to the online manual of your Synology NAS (Synology has very different NASes out there) so I could have a look. NFS has a lot of variants out there. |
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
Ahah! Like all networky things it is a matter of getting the right combination of several things. And I can at last display the directory and subdirectories! One minor thing – now it is in my Mounts file, when I click on the Mount in the menu list it does not immediately action as I expected, but opens the Mount dialogue. When Connect is clicked, it does mount. Note this was just experimentation to try and provide a backup should LanMan and LanMan98 have problems. Thanks for the help. |
Steffen Huber (91) 1945 posts |
Make sure that it does not stumble over “interesting” filenames. So do a full backup/restore/compare cycle to avoid bad surprises. |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2100 posts |
I seem to recall having a bit of trouble with this, and I think I had to manually tweak the last few parameters in my Mounts file. The end of the line reads |
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
Thanks Chris – I had found your old post with that suggestion … and using I also found a post from me some months ago which said I had got NFS working … obviously I had not updated my mounts file and deleted how from my memory! However, I have noticed one snag … any files with ‘/xxx’ suffices are shown as ‘UNIX Ex’ &FE6 filetype, which could be a problem. It does not seem to affect newly created files on NFS, just those which LanMan created, but Sprow did post about this. |
Steve Pampling (1551) 7932 posts |
The working status of the use of the host name “DiskStation” shows name resolution (DNS in all likelihood) is working in Dave’s network. The requirement for the use of “nobody” suggests that there is no defined name on the hosting storage device for the client device to use. I’d suggest that if the DiskStation device responds to ping on something like diskstation.local then creating an account on the diskstation called “riscshare” with permissions for the share and defining the mount with the parameters as something in the form “diskstation.local\riscshare,”password",DiskStation" may well work as you’re stating where the lookup of the permissions-account-password should be done. |
Martin Avison (27) 1418 posts |
Although I try to use DHCP, my RO machines have a static address given by the router, and I also have DiskStation in their Hosts file so I can use the names easily. (I think this is because Resolver or my router DHCP does not do local Name to IP ?) Ping DiskStation.local gives unknown host, while Just DiskStation works ok. The annoying thing is that I do have an account on the DiskStation with permissions for the share (as used by LanManFS & 98) but that gives the RPC error. |
Rick Murray (539) 13404 posts |
Maybe we’re getting stuck between two different ways of referring to machine names. The |
Rick Murray (539) 13404 posts |
The use of “.local” is not guaranteed…
Since there is no RFC specifying what TLD the router itself provides to represent “the internal network”, you may come across |
Rick Murray (539) 13404 posts |
How to find out what your router uses? I guess the quickest way is to run a traceroute to a known address, and see what the first line of the result says:
(edited not to be too wide) There it is, line 1. DNS lookup of router says “livebox.home”. |
Steve Pampling (1551) 7932 posts |
Which is frequently turned on by default on the (home)router1 and often with no means of turning off. BTW. You’ll get the suffix that your local name server is using from IPConfig ipconfig Windows IP Configuration 1 Not here. There are no unwanted protocols in use on networks where I have control. |
Pages: 1 2