On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:57 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopk...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/15/11 at 03:17pm, Dan wrote: >> Another nice thing about NFS4 is that it does everything in a single port >> (2049), so it is easier to do a ssh tunnel. > > Easier in the sense of less typing? You can repeat the -L and -R options as > many times as needed in a single SSH command (and can easily store them in > your > .ssh/config under an alias) > > -- > Liam >
This comes from the thread "Translate user names with NFS". It seems that the advantage of NFSv4 over NFSv3 when tunneling with ssh is that NFSv3 file locking does not work. It is not possible to ask statd or the locking manager to make requests to a particular port for a particular mount; therefore, any locking requests will cause statd to connect to statd on localhost, i.e., itself, and it will fail with an error http://nfs.sourceforge.net/nfs-howto/ar01s06.html But that is not an issue with NFS4 because all the communication goes through one single port: http://dag.wieers.com/blog/tunneling-nfs4-over-ssh Are there any disadvantages when tunneling NFS4 with ssh? Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktikqt9yvvhv166o+fx1o_qwhp9_...@mail.gmail.com
