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

Re: Mount TeraStation to LinkStation

Expand Messages
  • -
    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 1 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
      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 2 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
        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 3 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
          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 4 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
            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 5 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
              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 6 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
                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 7 of 9 , Jun 26, 2006
                  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.