![]() |
[SOLVED] Should /run/rpcbind be owned by xbian - Printable Version +- Forum (http://forum.xbian.org) +-- Forum: Software (/forum-6.html) +--- Forum: Configuration (/forum-17.html) +--- Thread: [SOLVED] Should /run/rpcbind be owned by xbian (/thread-1232.html) |
Should /run/rpcbind be owned by xbian - deckoff - 14th Aug, 2013 06:44 PM I was having hard time to mount a nfs share to my xbian Raspberry Pi, 512 MB (though reported 376 BM by system??) Xbian 1.0Beta1.1 Code: uname -a The mount command: Code: sudo mount -t nfs 192.168.1.106:/nfs /media/MyBookLive The error output was: Code: mount.nfs: rpc.statd is not running but is required for remote locking. I edited the /etc/default/nfs-common conf file, but the problem persissted. nsf-common refused to start anyway, because Code: [warn] Not starting: portmapper is not running ... (warning). After some fiddling, it turned out that Code: /run/rpcbind is owned by xbian, not by root. I changed ownership and the service started and i managed to mount. My question is this a bug, or this intended design and I am missing the point how to use the start the service here? RE: Should /run/rpcbind be owned by xbian - mk01 - 14th Aug, 2013 08:15 PM deckoff, /run is recreated on each boot from scratch. when you was doing your best to mount nfs, you probably started rpcbind process manually under xbian user (or mount - which tried to launch rpcbind via helper mount.nfs). then the run directory was of course created with ownership xbian. to setup properly, check your /etc/default/nfs-common that NEED_STATD is not "no" if you use NFS(2,3) (what was beta1 bug), then as root (or under xbian with sudo) run: Code: insserv -f rpcbind reboot btw: the memory is ok, 512mb is total ram. GPU has no dedicated memory and is shared with main. by default it is set to be 128MB (for GPU). RE: Should /run/rpcbind be owned by xbian - deckoff - 15th Aug, 2013 03:08 PM Thank you. I was just looking for a way to start up the services on each boot, and was was planning to see if I update-rc.d will do this for me. insserv seems to be an elegant answer ![]() Thank you, case is solved! |