March 6Mar 6 Hello!Occasionally on my Nobara client I will be ripping a bluray, using mkvtoolnix or handbrake and my nfs connection drops causing any application connected to freeze up. This happens semi consistently. I've tried increasing fuse file descriptors and setting the number of threads to maximum. I've switched to NFSv3 only on Unraid and I've tried multiple mount options. Currently my mount options for nobara are (nfs defaults 0 0). I've experienced the issue through several versions of Unraid, including the latest 7.2.4, 7.2.3 and 7.1.12. I don't know if this is an issue with the OS (nobara/fedora 43) Kernel (6.19.5-200) NFS client (nfs-utils-2.8.4-0.fc43.x86_64) or Unraid.I was finally able to capture this with rpcdebug. I unmounted the directory with umount -fl and then attempted to remount with mount -a -vvvv during the test in these logs. Unfortunately I lost the verbose output from the mount command.Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated.NFS Clients:10.0.5.7 (Rocky 7.9)10.0.6.2 (Nobara 43)Unraid:10.0.5.1 (Unraid 7.2.4)Client rpcinfo:rpcinfo program version netid address service owner 100000 4 tcp6 ::.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 3 tcp6 ::.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 4 udp6 ::.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 3 udp6 ::.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 4 tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 3 tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 2 tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 4 udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 3 udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 2 udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 portmapper superuser 100000 4 local @/run/rpcbind.sock portmapper superuser 100000 3 local @/run/rpcbind.sock portmapper superuser 100024 1 udp 0.0.0.0.182.182 status 29 100024 1 tcp 0.0.0.0.210.11 status 29 100024 1 udp6 ::.185.55 status 29 100024 1 tcp6 ::.138.73 status 29 100021 1 udp 0.0.0.0.189.142 nlockmgr superuser 100021 3 udp 0.0.0.0.189.142 nlockmgr superuser 100021 4 udp 0.0.0.0.189.142 nlockmgr superuser 100021 1 tcp 0.0.0.0.139.239 nlockmgr superuser 100021 3 tcp 0.0.0.0.139.239 nlockmgr superuser 100021 4 tcp 0.0.0.0.139.239 nlockmgr superuser 100021 1 udp6 ::.147.243 nlockmgr superuser 100021 3 udp6 ::.147.243 nlockmgr superuser 100021 4 udp6 ::.147.243 nlockmgr superuser 100021 1 tcp6 ::.129.159 nlockmgr superuser 100021 3 tcp6 ::.129.159 nlockmgr superuser 100021 4 tcp6 ::.129.159 nlockmgr superuserUnraid nfsstat:nfsstat Server rpc stats: calls badcalls badfmt badauth badclnt 386503 32 29 3 0 Server nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access 10 0% 837 0% 7 0% 430 0% 373 0% readlink read write create mkdir 0 0% 269113 69% 108284 28% 12 0% 2 0% symlink mknod remove rmdir rename 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% link readdir readdirplus fsstat fsinfo 0 0% 0 0% 158 0% 2448 0% 26 0% pathconf commit 4 0% 4806 1% client_rpc_debug.log unraid_nfsd_debug.log turing-diagnostics-20260306-1102.zip Edited March 6Mar 6 by timjtech
March 6Mar 6 RPC: xs_error_report ... error=104nfs: server 10.0.5.1 not responding, still tryingerror=104 = TCP connection was reset mid-transfer.The server message confirms it:nfsd attempted to send ~131 KB but only part of it was accepted before the socket closed.That means the TCP session broke while the NFS server was writing data.This pattern is typically one of:Network driver / NIC issueTCP segmentation offload (TSO/GSO/GRO) bugsMTU / jumbo frame mismatchIf you are sharing a user, it could also be FUSE-related; NFS doesn't always play nice with it, so it may be worth retesting with a disk or exclusive share.
March 6Mar 6 Author Thanks, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the NIC, it has problems with power management that I've had to script a fix to. I might just buy a new pcie adapter. I confirmed the MTU shouldn't be an issue. I have an old dell switch that might be doing this too so I'll do a more thorough network test.What do you mean by sharing a user? I have squash on so everything is nobody/99 users/100. I hate that I have to use FUSE but my shares are too big for a single volume (30TB+). I could probably figure out some symlinks and/or workarounds but that kind of sucks for usability.
March 7Mar 7 11 hours ago, timjtech said:What do you mean by sharing a user?Sorry, I meant using a user share that is going through FUSE (/mnt/user)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.