Updates on NFSv4 Support?


Recommended Posts

Do we have an ETA on when unRAID will support NFSv4+?

 

I've seen this request come up multiple times on here, and it looks like at one point, Tom even "tentatively" committed to trying to "get this into the next -rc release":

 

Unfortunately, that was over 3 years ago. Do we have any updates on this?

 

I believe adding support for more recent NFS versions is important because it is likely to resolve many of the problems we see with NFS here on the forum (especially the NFS "stale file handle" errors). I think that's why we also keep seeing this request come up over and over again.

 

I understand where Tom is coming from when he says, "Seriously, what is the advantage of NFS over SMB?":

 

The majority of the time, for the majority of users, I would recommend SMB. It's pretty fantastic as it exists today but, there are times when NFS is the better tool for the job. Particularly when the clients are Linux-based machines; NFS offers much better support for Unix operations (i.e. when you're backing up files to an unRAID share and it contains symbolic links). NFS also offers better performance with smaller files (i.e. those short, random-R/W-like file operations).

 

Rereading my post, I hope this request doesn't come off as overly aggressive. That's certainly not the intent. I just wanted to provide some background on the request and advocate for continued NFS support on unRAID.

 

NFS is still an important feature of unRAID.

 

Thank you in advance for your consideration!

 

-TorqueWrench

Edited by T0rqueWr3nch
Added a "thank you!"
  • Like 11
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Indeed, the inability to use NFS v4 is still an annoyance.  I don't have any machines running Microsoft - all my desktop m/cs run Linux Mint, my KODI/LibreElec boxes run a Linux kernel, my Squeezeplayer boxes run a Linux kernel, my homebrew domestic lighting control system runs on Linux, even Android phones run a Linux kernel.  Why would I want to run a microsoft network filing technology.

 

T0rqueWr3nch has highlighted some advantages of using the latest version of NFS in such an environment.

 

Please, if it's simply a matter of turning on a kernel option, and it has no adverse effect on any other functionality, can this be implemented in the next release?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I am new to unraid and would also like to add my voice to this request.  I previously made a file store and media server with Ubuntu Server and went through much pain with NFS3 that I ultimately got resolved by switching to NFS 4.  I use Ubuntu as my primary desktop and was unable to get backups using programs that use hardlinks working until the switch (I use a program called BackInTime).   My steam library is on my file server (as in I run games, including windows games via proton, from my server over nfs) and this was extremely unreliable until I started using NFS4.  Now that I'm on unraid, I'm dealing with all those old problems that I haven't had in the 4 years I was running Ubuntu with mergerFS.  I don't regret the move as unraid lets me expand the things I can do with my server with way more ease but the loss of NFS 4 has been painful.  Please enable NFS4 support.

Edited by gcolds
fixed a grammer error
  • Like 3
Link to comment

Not having NFS4 is a real nuisance. There are valid reasons which have been outlined in numerous threads.

 

I installed a workaround which is ok for the time being, but it is

 

a) 3rd party

b) still under development

c) requires resources, which would be more useful in other places

d) requires extra maintenance

e) has its own (strange) behavior, which needs to be managed

f) requires stupid exceptions in the setup of the infrastructure the Unraid NAS is operated in

 

All of the above is superfluous and could be avoided.

 

The posts quoted in the original post show, that it had been "sort of" considered at some point in 2016, but not followed up any further. Even worse, despite the numerous requests from the community (it goes back to 2011) this topic seems to be completely ignored by limetech. No comments, no answers, no roadmap, no proposals for alternative setups/configurations, nothing. Complete ignorance for years, apart from the single comment in 2016. This is not the way to deal with customers and not the way to attract new customers.

 

My apologies to the developers for my harsh comments, but you've been working yourselves towards this sort of reaction.

 

Regards

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I hope the dev will implement NFS4.x soon... I was hoping to setup Unraid as a Veeam Backup Repository, but I have issue's with it on both SMB and NFS. NFS requires me to reboot my proxy before running a backup just to get a connection to the NFS. If I don't I get a message saying I don't have write access to the location. Already checked the rights on the share, and tried with NFS share as public and unfortunately it didn't work out.

Link to comment

Yes, rebooting the proxy sounds very familiar ;-) Did you check the proxy logs? In my case the reason for the failures were stale file handles. With Ganesha-NFS I've never seen a stale handle.

 

It is really annoying to run a NAS with an outdated NFS V3. Plenty of bells and whistles in Unraid, but the lack of a very basic function of a NAS makes me speechless. It is a NAS in the end. Anything else is a nice-to-have.

 

Ok, I'll stop my rant now. It's all said ... 😞 

 

Edited by DerCarsten
  • Like 1
Link to comment

I'm going to have a look at Ganesha-NFS later this week. I hope I can get the docker container running on it's own IP address.. that has been an issue for me so far.. maybe because I have a virtual Unraid server (ESXi based with 2x LSI cards on passthrough).

 

Oh, and I have the same issue with the stale file handles (in the Veeam Backup Job logs: NFS status code: 70).

Edited by Guido
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I came to the forums looking to see if the stale file handle thing in recent releases had ever been addressed. I'm still using 6.7.2 because of it. It's extremely annoying not knowing if I'll ever be able to upgrade.

 

I don't use any other part of UnRAID except the NAS feature. I have one single Windows client(my work laptop) which I don't even access the NAS with. SMB is disabled. There's probably 15+ Linux clients in the house that however do need access to it.

 

I remember seeing something about disabling hard links in 6.8+ and when I tried it it seemed to make things better-ish but I still had issues with a VM that needs to have a share mounted to do it's job. I would find that VM acting up and would then need to deal with it.. pretty much daily. That VM has two mounted file systems beside the main disk. One remote sshfs and one nfs from unraid. It would fail when copying a file from remote to unraid.

 

Will NFSv4 fix my issues? I have no idea. All I know is 6.7.2 works flawlessly and any version past that does not. COULD I use SMB instead? MAYBE? I would have to test it against ALL of my use cases. Do I want to? No.. Should I have to with a linux based server and client? No... Is the lack of properly working NFS in a NAS solution bad? Yes.

 

IF there is a technical reason why NFSv4 hasn't been brought over to unraid it would be nice if one of the devs could chime in and explain that reason. Others have asked for the same explanation and it's usually just *crickets* from the devs, but MAYBE i'll get an answer?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, BRiT said:

Has anyone having NFS issues actually tried posting diagnostics and logs and working with the devs at Limetech or other forum users to troubleshoot the issues? All I see are claims of issues but never anyone filing bug reports with information on how to reproduce the issues.

Yes. NFS IS ABOUT USELESS IN UNRAID 6.8.0

Aug 4. NFS STALE FILE HANDLES (Seems to be ignored....)

 

Disabling hard links does not solve all of my issues though. I have not tried since 6.8.1 first came about(i usually wait for the first minor release..). When 6.9.1 comes about I may try updating again and see how things go. The recent posts here stating recent issues with NFS don't give me hope though. 

Edited by DaMadOne
Link to comment
On 8/5/2020 at 3:35 PM, Guido said:

I'm going to have a look at Ganesha-NFS later this week. I hope I can get the docker container running on it's own IP address.. that has been an issue for me so far.. maybe because I have a virtual Unraid server (ESXi based with 2x LSI cards on passthrough).

 

Oh, and I have the same issue with the stale file handles (in the Veeam Backup Job logs: NFS status code: 70).

Any luck with Ganesha-NFS?

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Moved most of my NFS needs to a Ganesha-NFS via Docker and much grief in my system is now gone.. Emby loads quicker w/out randomly spinning forever, no stale file handlers, services can recover from nas restart, and Kubernetes is generally happier dealing w/NFSv4

 

Why this is not a priority I've no idea, it needs to be.. I'm only using SMB for TimeMachine backups, vast majority of traffic is NFS and now I've nearly abandoned unRaid's native sharing.. thank god for docker or I'd be looking at unraid alternatives at this point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
On 3/15/2021 at 2:46 AM, nayr said:

Moved most of my NFS needs to a Ganesha-NFS via Docker and much grief in my system is now gone.. Emby loads quicker w/out randomly spinning forever, no stale file handlers, services can recover from nas restart, and Kubernetes is generally happier dealing w/NFSv4

 

Why this is not a priority I've no idea, it needs to be.. I'm only using SMB for TimeMachine backups, vast majority of traffic is NFS and now I've nearly abandoned unRaid's native sharing.. thank god for docker or I'd be looking at unraid alternatives at this point.

Are you able to provide guidance on installing/using this docker?  I'm getting fed up with having to reboot my clients every time the unRaid nfsv3 craps out.

 

I still don't understand why there is such resistance to implementing nfsv4 natively on a file server OS.

 

Perhaps someone can create an unRaid version of this docker, and include it in Community Applications.

Edited by PeterB
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

@PeterB

 

there is a work-around with a ganesha-nfs container. I described the installation in another post, which I referred to in my post above.

 

Regards

 

Carsten

 

On 7/16/2020 at 2:37 PM, DerCarsten said:

Not having NFS4 is a real nuisance. There are valid reasons which have been outlined in numerous threads.

 

I installed a workaround which is ok for the time being, but it is

 

a) 3rd party

b) still under development

c) requires resources, which would be more useful in other places

d) requires extra maintenance

e) has its own (strange) behavior, which needs to be managed

f) requires stupid exceptions in the setup of the infrastructure the Unraid NAS is operated in

 

All of the above is superfluous and could be avoided.

 

The posts quoted in the original post show, that it had been "sort of" considered at some point in 2016, but not followed up any further. Even worse, despite the numerous requests from the community (it goes back to 2011) this topic seems to be completely ignored by limetech. No comments, no answers, no roadmap, no proposals for alternative setups/configurations, nothing. Complete ignorance for years, apart from the single comment in 2016. This is not the way to deal with customers and not the way to attract new customers.

 

My apologies to the developers for my harsh comments, but you've been working yourselves towards this sort of reaction.

 

Regards

 

Link to comment

@ausca

 

they lost the focus, paired with sheer ignorance. As simple as that.

 

Unraid is not a NAS anymore. Have a look at that what's in the box and what is being worked on. Virtualization, Wireguard, GPU support, Docker stuff ... What has all of this to do with a NAS? It turns into an all-singing-all-dancing something. Fancy stuff is being implemented on the fly (seems to be), which then has to undergo troubleshooting, improvement and maintenance, with new ideas for these new features coming in, blowing things out of proportion and keep the team busy with non-core tasks. All of a sudden you find yourself in a situation, where you have a tool that can do loads of things which are (presumably) great. But, at the same time you neglect the basics, the roots of your product and what it initially wanted to be.

 

NFSV4? Bonkers. -> GPU Support! That is what you need on your NAS! Forget NFS V4, a Windows VM is what you need on your NAS, man!

 

I'm sure there are good use-cases for most of the features in Unraid, no question. But what about the NFS V4 use-case? Plenty of people in the community complaining about "stale file handles" and other problems with V3. I was fighting stale file handles for a year+ with tons and tons of hours of trying and testing, before I came across a docker version of ganesha-nfs. And all of a sudden all of the problems I had with NFS were gone, ALL!

 

As long as you have a high tech SatNav in your car, Voice Control, autonomous driving, aircon, surround sound ... who cares about your flat tyre? Just balance your car properly and enjoy the music! Who needs four wheels?

 

I have my rant about this topic occasionally here and I'm sure that this won't encourage anybody of the team to implement something. I know that. On the other hand I'm really annoyed about limetech's ignorance. If they were communicating at least some reasons, good or bad ones, why they refuse to implement it, one could understand or discuss things or even support. But this complete ignorance is the worst a company can do to customers. 

 

Regards

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

@DerCarsten

 

Yeh the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none" really does come in to play here. There does appear to be an identity crisis happening.

 

Has there been any offical reasoning behind no NFS4? E.g, has someone from Unraid come out and say "We tried, but are blocked by x" or is there just radio silence? I'm not sure which annoys me most, a lack of NFS4 or no acknowledgement.

Link to comment

Just radio silence. Well, at least I didn't find anything from their end in the forums, apart from challenging the advantages of NFS over SMB in 2014 and the note in 2016 that they were considering to implement it (see further up in this thread). When you search the community forums you find plenty of people with NFS problems. Stale file handles seem to be the most popular problem.

 

 

I'm surprised the question was raised by Linux experts.

 

When I struggled with V3 I tried to use SMB. I then tried to run Nextcloud with MySQL as the backend in docker containers on a dedicated server, to name just one of the use-cases. So, a !functional! network connection is must. It was a nightmare! Permission problems left right center ..... NFS was the only chance to get that running. And with V3? Permission problems were gone, but stale file handles within a few hours or, if I was lucky, a few days. With ganesha NFS V4 my stuff is now running for a year+ without having to touch it. Just perfect. Downside is, that ganesha is a workaround, not a solution.

 

With MS Win clients SMB is ok.

With MacOS SMB ist sort of ok, but dead slow when it comes to reading directories with a bigger number of entries. But that is a MacOS issue, not an Unraid issue. Nevertheless, NFS would be desirable. 

With Linux clients SMB won't work if you need permissions. In a world where you have to have control over your security settings, especially when you provide services outside of your local network (web servers etc.), you can't work with SMB. NFS is the only option here. V3 with stale file handlers all over the place is useless.

 

A shame you have to explain that to Linux experts.

 

Whatever, ....... frustrating though ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I added nfsv4 support in kernel starting with 6.10-rc2. nfsv3 still works and the v4 protocol is definitely enabled but I can't get a client (another Unraid server) to mount a share using v4 protocol. Spent a couple hours on it this morning but I have no time to spend more time on it now.

 

If someone wants to test this and let me know what has to happen, then we can add to 6.10 release.  But please post in Prerelease Board.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, limetech said:

I added nfsv4 support in kernel starting with 6.10-rc2. nfsv3 still works and the v4 protocol is definitely enabled but I can't get a client (another Unraid server) to mount a share using v4 protocol. Spent a couple hours on it this morning but I have no time to spend more time on it now.

 

If someone wants to test this and let me know what has to happen, then we can add to 6.10 release.  But please post in Prerelease Board.

As soon as it is available I will test with UD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, limetech said:

I added nfsv4 support in kernel starting with 6.10-rc2. nfsv3 still works and the v4 protocol is definitely enabled but I can't get a client (another Unraid server) to mount a share using v4 protocol. Spent a couple hours on it this morning but I have no time to spend more time on it now.

 

If someone wants to test this and let me know what has to happen, then we can add to 6.10 release.  But please post in Prerelease Board.

I'll be happy to test out in rc2.  I exclusively only use NFS for my mounts since Steam games don't launch from SMB mounts on linux consistently). 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, gcolds said:

I'll be happy to test out in rc2.  I exclusively only use NFS for my mounts since Steam games don't launch from SMB mounts on linux consistently). 

Ok you can test with an -rc2 "pre-release".  To install, install this plugin.  It puts you on our "test" branch, mainly for internal testing:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/dnld.lime-technology.com/test/unRAIDServer.plg

(paste that URL into the Install Plugin URL field)

It should come up as 6.10.0-rc2d

 

Also: what NFS client are you running?

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.