From: Michael <confabulate@kintzios.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Permission error when trying to rsync over nfs
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:16:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2005358.PYKUYFuaPT@rogueboard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d7fd97c-f6f0-a877-7889-ff0c5c830ebb@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4264 bytes --]
On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 17:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 14:27:51 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> OK, I am confused ... :-/
> >>>
> >>> If you want to update the contents of a fs over the network, then rsync
> >>> is
> >>> your tool. Why is NFS coming into this at all?
> >>>
> >>> Assuming the user IDs are the same across systems, add '--numeric-ids'.
> >>> That's all.
> >>
> >> Well, I mount the drives on the NAS box over the network with nfs on my
> >> main rig. It's just how I set it up. For some reason, it just won't
> >> work this time. It works when I do my video backups tho. :/
> >
> > NFS has other advantages, but running rsync through it ain't one of them.
> >
> > Are the directories exported in the *same* way?
> >
> > Do you use (rw) as an option?
> >
> > Have you set up anonuid and anongid options in the exports for the IDs you
> > want the remote users to acquire when connecting over NFS?
> >
> >> It does mount fine and everything shows up. It's just that it won't let
> >> me create a directory or anything to copy files over.
> >
> > Can you drag & drop individual files using the GUI or CLI, without rsync?
> >
> > Check the above suggestions in case one of them works for you.
> >
> > However, I still think you should use rsync directly, since we're talking
> > about updating remote data to match your local data - it is what it was
> > designed for.
>
> I had a idea. I checked permissions of things while connected to the
> new data drive set. Then I pulled the backup drive set from the safe
> and hooked it up. I then checked the permissions of it. There is
> something different between the two. Could this be the problem. This
> is the info, removing unneeded bits. This is the data drive set.
>
>
>
> root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
> /dev/mapper/data on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
> root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
> total 24
> drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
> drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 backup
> root@nas ~ #
>
>
> root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
> 10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4
> (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,prot
> o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_lock=
> none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
> total 68
> drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
> drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 TV_Backup
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>
>
>
> This is the backup drive set which works fine.
>
>
>
> root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
> /dev/mapper/backup on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
> root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
> total 24
> drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
> drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
> drwxr-xr-x 4 1000 users 4096 Aug 4 2024 backup
> root@nas ~ #
>
>
> root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
> 10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4
> (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,prot
> o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_lock=
> none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
> total 68
> drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
> drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
> drwxr-xr-x 4 dale users 4096 Aug 4 2024 TV_Backup
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>
>
> The difference is on the NAS box. Permissions are set to 1000:users. I
> don't recall setting that. So, I reconnected the data drive set and
> changed the permissions to match the backup drive set. As I type, it is
> doing the backups.
>
> I wonder, why does it have to be set that way???? Oh, you can bet I put
> this info in a file, for me to forget I have when I run into this
> again. :/
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
> P. S. Is there a better way to do this? I'm not worried about security
> as it only goes between one box through my router to the other box. I
> just need to be able to go both ways.
Normally, /mnt is owned by root:root. Plain users are not allowed to create
mountpoints at will.
UID 1000 would be the first user you set on this PC, e.g. 'dale'.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-21 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-19 13:39 [gentoo-user] Permission error when trying to rsync over nfs Dale
2025-05-20 11:46 ` Michael
2025-05-20 13:27 ` Dale
2025-05-20 14:02 ` Michael
2025-05-20 16:30 ` Dale
2025-05-21 18:16 ` Michael [this message]
2025-05-21 19:42 ` Dale
2025-05-21 20:03 ` Michael
2025-05-26 10:09 ` Dale
2025-05-28 12:58 ` Dale
2025-05-30 23:35 ` Frank Steinmetzger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2005358.PYKUYFuaPT@rogueboard \
--to=confabulate@kintzios.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox