Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mount TeraStation to LinkStation

Expand Messages
  • -
    Hello all - I have both a LinkStation and TeraStation. My LinkStation serves my network using TwonkyVision to DLink DSM s. Works great. I have a number of NAS
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all -

      I have both a LinkStation and TeraStation.

      My LinkStation serves my network using TwonkyVision to DLink DSM's.
      Works great. I have a number of NAS units that I mount to the
      LinkStation so that the streaming software can manage the vid /
      music files - again works like a charm after quite a bit of work.
      These are NFS shares on Snap servers.

      I have recently acquired a TeraStation and want to mount this unit
      to the LinkStation. I have "root" access on both units. When I try
      to mount from the LinkStation to the TeraStation, the command
      returns -

      mount: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused.

      Please forgive my lack of knowledge on how to sort this and would
      appreciate any help available. I am fairly Linux ignorant.

      I can say I checked the hosts.deny and there are no listings.
      Additionally I edited the hosts.allow to read ALL.
    • -
      Looks like installing NFS on the TeraStation might sort this - anyone familiar with doing this?
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 23, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Looks like installing NFS on the TeraStation might sort this - anyone
        familiar with doing this?
      • -
        I managed to get NFS into the TeraStation. The mounts from the LinkStation now fail with: mount XXXXX failed, reason given by server Permission Denied The
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I managed to get NFS into the TeraStation.

          The mounts from the LinkStation now fail with:

          "mount XXXXX failed, reason given by server Permission Denied"

          The Log File on the TeraStation shows:

          "rpc.mountd refused mount request from linkstation for /array1 (/):
          no export entry"

          My /etc/exports file:

          /mnt/array1 linkstation(rw,insecure,no_root_squash)

          My /ets/hosts file has the IP to linkstation listing

          exportfs -ra comes back error free

          I know I'm close - - HELP! (smile)
        • -
          HOW TRUELY TRUELY SAD ... What a POS. After sorting out the mount ( you need to use the full path - was the last bit ) - the throughput on this unit
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            HOW TRUELY TRUELY SAD ...

            What a POS.

            After sorting out the mount ( you need to use the full path - was
            the last bit ) - the throughput on this unit (TeraStation) is aweful.

            So much so it is unusable.

            I can't imagine how they believe a 1TB unit will be used with such a
            poor read / write spec.

            So to recap -

            Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
            you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.

            They indicate the unit is 1GB (network) friendly - it isn't - the
            unit can't read / write fast enough to push the data thru the NIC at
            this rate.

            Just one falsehood after another . . .
          • bill fumerola
            ... freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp server as a file system. no nfs required. ... you re never gonna push a full gigabit
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
              > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
              > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.

              freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp
              server as a file system. no nfs required.

              > They indicate the unit is 1GB (network) friendly - it isn't - the
              > unit can't read / write fast enough to push the data thru the NIC at
              > this rate.

              you're never gonna push a full gigabit with that device though. it's
              provided so that 100Mb isn't the limit. it will, however, negotiate a
              gigabit link on a gigabit switch. that's all it means. the rest is highly
              dependent on drive speed, cpu speed, raid algorithms, etc.

              remember also that by adding more programs (rpc.mountd, nfsd, etc) the
              cpu is doing more work and more memory is being allocated. you may be
              bringing down the performance by running so many processes.

              > Just one falsehood after another . . .

              just one misunderstanding after another. if you don't understand whats
              at work with unix system administration/performance, you might not want
              to play with the underlying operating system. the terastation is not a
              computing powerhouse. like most embedded systems, careful tuning is
              required.

              if you want to peg a gigabit port with nfs, netapp, emc, et al make fine,
              fine products. don't have thousands of dollars to spend? just put together
              a freebsd or linux machine with a bunch of fast sata drives and a gigabit
              nic.

              you get what you pay for.

              -- bill
            • Thomas Ilnseher
              ... yes, that is _somewhat_ true. however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs: UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs. with smbfs, you
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                bill fumerola wrote:
                >
                > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
                > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
                > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
                >
                > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp
                > server as a file system. no nfs required.
                >






                yes, that is _somewhat_ true.

                however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
                UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.

                with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids / gids /
                whatever.

                i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.



                >
                > > They indicate the unit is 1GB (network) friendly - it isn't - the
                > > unit can't read / write fast enough to push the data thru the NIC at
                > > this rate.
                >
                > you're never gonna push a full gigabit with that device though. it's
                > provided so that 100Mb isn't the limit. it will, however, negotiate a
                > gigabit link on a gigabit switch. that's all it means. the rest is highly
                > dependent on drive speed, cpu speed, raid algorithms, etc.
                >
                > remember also that by adding more programs (rpc.mountd, nfsd, etc) the
                > cpu is doing more work and more memory is being allocated. you may be
                > bringing down the performance by running so many processes.
                >
                > > Just one falsehood after another . . .
                >
                > just one misunderstanding after another. if you don't understand whats
                > at work with unix system administration/performance, you might not want
                > to play with the underlying operating system. the terastation is not a
                > computing powerhouse. like most embedded systems, careful tuning is
                > required.
                >
                > if you want to peg a gigabit port with nfs, netapp, emc, et al make fine,
                > fine products. don't have thousands of dollars to spend? just put together
                > a freebsd or linux machine with a bunch of fast sata drives and a gigabit
                > nic.
                >
                > you get what you pay for.
                >
                > -- bill
                >
                >
              • bill fumerola
                ... somewhat true? can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes. can osx mount the terastation s ftp service as a file system? yes. is enabling
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
                  > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
                  > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
                  > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
                  > >
                  > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp
                  > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
                  >
                  > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.

                  somewhat true?

                  can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
                  can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
                  is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.

                  looks like what i said is entirely true.

                  sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
                  desireable in some environments too.

                  > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
                  > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
                  >
                  > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids / gids /
                  > whatever.
                  >
                  > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.

                  the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they each
                  have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it saying
                  that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and put in
                  NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely desires to
                  be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.

                  - bill
                • -
                  Although put politely bill your comments are without merit. In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit - Bufallo advertises their product as having
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Although put politely bill your comments are without merit.

                    In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit -

                    Bufallo advertises their product as having NFS - yet it does not.

                    Additionally your viewpoint that when you add additional modules
                    creating load on the embeded unit causes performance degradation on
                    the surface makes sense - the ability to calibrate to a 1GB link is
                    pointless if the throughput does not take advantage of it.

                    It would be like building a tank with a single horse power engine -
                    it is still a tank - but a paper weight tank.

                    Unfortunately although your statements a valid - that does not make
                    them applicable nor of merit to the actual condition(s).

                    The most amusing part of this is - the LinkStation which was the
                    reason I needed NFS - has the NFS client installed.

                    Finally - the performance issues were evident prior to NFS using
                    SMB - so I remain on the hilltop shouting this TeraStation is a POS.


                    --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, bill fumerola
                    <billf@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
                    > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
                    > > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't
                    until
                    > > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
                    > > >
                    > > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount
                    an ftp
                    > > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
                    > >
                    > > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.
                    >
                    > somewhat true?
                    >
                    > can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
                    > can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
                    > is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.
                    >
                    > looks like what i said is entirely true.
                    >
                    > sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
                    > desireable in some environments too.
                    >
                    > > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
                    > > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
                    > >
                    > > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids /
                    gids /
                    > > whatever.
                    > >
                    > > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.
                    >
                    > the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they
                    each
                    > have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it
                    saying
                    > that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and
                    put in
                    > NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely
                    desires to
                    > be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.
                    >
                    > - bill
                    >
                  • Brian Waite
                    ... Where do you get the advertised NFS support? Looking at the datasheets for TS and TS Pro, I see the following protocols: TCP/IP, SMB,FTP, UPS. I don t know
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jun 26, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Saturday 24 June 2006 5:13 pm, - wrote:
                      > Although put politely bill your comments are without merit.
                      >
                      > In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit -
                      >
                      > Bufallo advertises their product as having NFS - yet it does not.
                      >
                      Where do you get the advertised NFS support? Looking at the datasheets for TS
                      and TS Pro, I see the following protocols: TCP/IP, SMB,FTP, UPS. I don't know
                      where you got NFS but if you get your purchasing info from developer
                      websites, be prepared to do leg work to get there.

                      Refernces:
                      http://buffalotech.com/documents/pdf/TeraStation-Pro_DS.pdf
                      http://buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=133&categoryid=25
                      > Additionally your viewpoint that when you add additional modules
                      > creating load on the embeded unit causes performance degradation on
                      > the surface makes sense - the ability to calibrate to a 1GB link is
                      > pointless if the throughput does not take advantage of it.
                      >
                      > It would be like building a tank with a single horse power engine -
                      > it is still a tank - but a paper weight tank.
                      >
                      > Unfortunately although your statements a valid - that does not make
                      > them applicable nor of merit to the actual condition(s).
                      >
                      > The most amusing part of this is - the LinkStation which was the
                      > reason I needed NFS - has the NFS client installed.
                      >
                      I think you amde an assumption about the TS that is proven untrue.

                      > Finally - the performance issues were evident prior to NFS using
                      > SMB - so I remain on the hilltop shouting this TeraStation is a POS.
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, bill fumerola
                      >
                      > <billf@...> wrote:
                      > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
                      > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
                      > > > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't
                      >
                      > until
                      >
                      > > > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount
                      >
                      > an ftp
                      >
                      > > > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
                      > > >
                      > > > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.
                      > >
                      > > somewhat true?
                      > >
                      > > can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
                      > > can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
                      > > is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.
                      > >
                      > > looks like what i said is entirely true.
                      > >
                      > > sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
                      > > desireable in some environments too.
                      > >
                      > > > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
                      > > > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
                      > > >
                      > > > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids /
                      >
                      > gids /
                      >
                      > > > whatever.
                      > > >
                      > > > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.
                      > >
                      > > the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they
                      >
                      > each
                      >
                      > > have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it
                      >
                      > saying
                      >
                      > > that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and
                      >
                      > put in
                      >
                      > > NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely
                      >
                      > desires to
                      >
                      > > be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.
                      > >
                      > > - bill
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.