This sounds like a reserved port issue.  I forget exactly when it went in,
but the mountd semantics were changed to by default deny mounts from
clients NOT using a privileged port.  Earlier NetBSD did just that.  Try
adding the option -noresvport to your /etc/exports on the 1.3 machine.
that should allow the 1.2.1 machine to mount.  Once it is upgraded, you
will no longer need that.

Sorry I have no clue about the RAM.

Dave

> First off, kudos to Jason, Scott, Dave and anyone who worked on the 1.3 
> release! Things have come a long way since 1.0 (Heck, you made big strides 
> between 1.2 & 1.3!)
> 
> I have 2 twin 375s that had been running 1.2.1, and I've got them 
> connected on their own little private network for the upgrade to 1.3. 
> I've upgraded 1 machine without incident (or, all incidents were 
> self-induced) and was about to run disklabel to install SYS_INST on the 
> second disk, when I got nervous, and decided to make sure that I could 
> NFS mount the newly 1.3 machine to copy the miniroot.
> 
> I can mount the drive without an error, but I can't SEE anything on 
> it (permission denied, including the mount point after I've mounted 
> it) Mounting read-only doesn't change this odd behaviour.
> 
> So, I know NFS got a facelift in this release, and I was wondering if 
> the /etc/exports file format changed (the man page is identical).
> 
> What's really strange is that the 1.3 machine can mount the 1.2.1 
> partition (with a nearly identical /etc/exports) normally.
> 
> I've moved all of the old binaries in /sbin to *.1.2, so I don't think 
> THAT'S the problem, and I can't find anything else that might be causing 
> it.
> 
> I'm sure this is a simple problem with a simple solution, which has made 
> it's tenacity all the more frustrating.
> 
> Just for the record, the 1.3 /etc/exports (it's simple):
> /local -maproot=0 192.168.1.1
> 
> -
> My SIMM question is shorter (I promise) I have 4 SIMMs that are allegedly 
> from a 345. They seem to fit my 375, but when the machine memory tests on 
> boot, I get parity errors. Are these SIMMs compatable with the 375?
> 
> (The fact that I get a parity error would suggest not, but would also 
> suggest that it's not a matter of clipping a resistor to announce their 
> existence.)
> 
> Any help would be appreciated...
> Thanks
> 
> -e
> 
>