Re: [gentoo-user] NFS tutorial for the brain dead sysadmin?

[behrouz khosravi <bz.khosravi@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4345 bytes --]

Hello every body.
I was wondering that is it possible to make portage to sync a only a subset
of portage tree. For example I have not installed Gnome and I dont want to
sysc command download ebuilds related to this branch.
thanks


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM, J. Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:

> On Sunday, July 27, 2014 08:44:02 PM Kerin Millar wrote:
> > On 27/07/2014 17:55, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On 27 July 2014 18:25:24 CEST, "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@xunil.at>
> wrote:
> > >> Am 26.07.2014 04:47, schrieb walt:
> > >>> So, why did the "broken" machine work normally for more than a year
> > >>> without rpcbind until two days ago?  (I suppose because nfs-utils was
> > >>> updated to 1.3.0 ?)
> > >>>
> > >>> The real problem here is that I have no idea how NFS works, and each
> > >>> new version is more complicated because the devs are solving problems
> > >>> that I don't understand or even know about.
> > >>
> > >> I double your search for understanding ... my various efforts to set
> up
> > >> NFSv4 for sharing stuff in my LAN also lead to unstable behavior and
> > >> frustration.
> > >>
> > >> Only last week I re-attacked this topic as I start using puppet here
> to
> > >> manage my systems ... and one part of this might be sharing
> > >> /usr/portage
> > >> via NFSv4. One client host mounts it without a problem, the thinkpads
> > >> don't do so ... just another example ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Additional in my context: using systemd ... so there are other
> > >> (different?) dependencies at work and services started.
> > >>
> > >> I'd be happy to get that working in a reliable way. I don't remember
> > >> unstable behavior with NFS (v2 back then?) when we used it at a
> company
> > >> I worked for in the 90s.
> > >>
> > >> Stefan
> > >
> > > I use NFS for filesharing between all wired systems at home.
> > > Samba is only used for MS Windows and laptops.
> > >
> > > Few things I always make sure are valid:
> > > - One partition per NFS share
> > > - No NFS share is mounted below another one
> > > - I set the version to 3 on the clients
> > > - I use LDAP for the user accounts to ensure the UIDs and GIDs are
> > > consistent.
> > These are generally good recommendations. I'd just like to make a few
> > observations.
> >
> > The problems associated with not observing the first constraint (one
> > filesystem per export) can be alleviated by setting an explicit fsid.
> > Doing so can also help to avoid stale handles on the client side if the
> > backing filesystem changes - something that is very useful in a
> > production environment. Therefore, I tend to start at 1 and increment
> > with each newly added export. For example:-
> >
> >    /export/foo      *(async,no_subtree_check,fsid=1)
> >    /export/foo/bar  *(async,no_subtree_check,fsid=2)
> >    /export/baz      *(async,no_subtree_check,fsid=3)
> >
> > If using NFSv3, I'd recommend using "nolock" as a mount option unless
> > there is a genuine requirement for locks to be co-ordinated. Such locks
> > are only advisory and are of questionable value. Using nolock simplifies
> > the requirements on both server and client side, and is beneficial for
> > performance.
> >
> > NFSv3/UDP seems to be limited to a maximum read/write block size of
> > 32768 in Linux, which will be negotiated by default. Using TCP, the
> > upper bound will be the value of /proc/fs/nfsd/max_block_size on the
> > server. Its value may be set to 1048576 at the most. NFSv3/TCP is
> > problematic so I would recommend NFSv4 if TCP is desired as a transport
> > protocol.
> >
> > NFSv4 provides a useful uid/gid mapping feature that is easier to set up
> > and maintain than nss_ldap.
> >
> > > NFS4 requires all the exports to be under a single foldertree.
> >
> > This is a myth:
> >
> http://linuxcostablanca.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nfsv4-myths-and-legends.html
> .
> > Exports can be defined and consumed in the same manner as with NFSv3.
>
> When I originally tried NFSv4, it refused to work unless they were all
> under
> the same directory.
> As I dislike that, I decided against using it.
>
> That was a long time ago, will revisit that part again later.
>
> Interesting link, I wonder how difficult it will be to combine that with
> Samba
> 4 and use the Samba AD structure for NFSv4 with either ZFS or BTRFS
> underneath.
>
> --
> Joost
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5580 bytes --]