NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Worli
Apr 21, 2020Tutor
ReadyNAS RN42200 hangs completely up during backup to RN31400
Hi everyone, I am trying now since already a year to do backups from my newer RN42200 (two 12TB Disks in RAID 1) to my older RN31400 (4 Disks, RAID 5). Both are on OS 6.10.3. I tried Backups via SMB,...
- Apr 25, 2020
Hi Stephen, I think the MTU size (at 9000) was the root cause! After changing it on both boxes back to 1500 and a reboot everything worked. I successfully tried via NFS, SMB and Rsync.
But first I had to delete the existing backup-jobs and had to create new ones. The old ones were not working! Whyever...
Wow, this is really absolutely unexpected. Strange, because from all other devices on the network it was always working! No matter which OS, Windows as well as Linux.
However, many thanks Stephen for your help and especially also for your patience which I really appreciate. May be I get ometimes to opportunity to help you too!!!:smileyvery-happy:
Worli
Apr 24, 2020Tutor
Hi Stephen, it was not a SSH-Key but a new user which is in Admin-Group on the box. So for the connection via Rsync (in the backup job) I used this new admin-key instead of the standard-"admin". Just another try.
StephenB
Apr 24, 2020Guru - Experienced User
Worli wrote:
Hi Stephen, it was not a SSH-Key but a new user which is in Admin-Group on the box. So for the connection via Rsync (in the backup job) I used this new admin-key instead of the standard-"admin". Just another try.
Do you have password protection enabled on the remote share (for rsync)? If you do, try disabling that setting.
If you have experience with the linux command line, you might also want to try accessing the NAS hosting the backup job with ssh,and try using rsync manually. That might give you some more clues.
Another test that might be useful: you can "fake" the network connection by using 127.0.0.1 as the remote IP address. Then you can try setting up two shares on the same NAS, and test the rsync part alone (taking the network out of the equation). This can be done on both NAS.
- WorliApr 24, 2020Tutor
Hi, Stephen, no I never activated never via Rsync Password (on the share, under Rsync). Double-checked, not activated.
May a good try to fin more out via ssh/rsync....
- StephenBApr 24, 2020Guru - Experienced User
Worli wrote:
Hi, Stephen, no I never activated never via Rsync Password (on the share, under Rsync). Double-checked, not activated.
Then you shouldn't need a username/password in the backup job at all. Though it normally does no harm to include it anyway.
Worli wrote:
May a good try to fin more out via ssh/rsync....
When you try that, you will need to override the default behavior (which is to run rsync over ssh). You to that by prepending "rsync:" to the remote path.
Still, I'd try the 127.0.0.1 tests first. That will rule out the network, and it might also pinpoint one NAS that is misbehaving.
- WorliApr 24, 2020Tutor
Stephen, fune, will do the 127.0.0.1 first.
- WorliApr 24, 2020Tutor
Stephen, on both boxes the 127.0.0.1-test was successful. I Rsynced locally from Share Music to Share temp2. 15GB within a minimum of time.
- StephenBApr 24, 2020Guru - Experienced User
Worli wrote:
Stephen, on both boxes the 127.0.0.1-test was successful. I Rsynced locally from Share Music to Share temp2. 15GB within a minimum of time.
That suggests there might be something going on with your network. Anything on the path that might be blocking ports? Are you using the standard ethernet MTU, or have you configured jumbo frames?
How comfortable are you with ssh?
- WorliApr 25, 2020Tutor
Hi Stephen, since everything runs "internally" I do not block amything on my LAN. The MTU is set on both boxes to 9000.
Today I tried to manually (via SSH on the Target box) the shares from Soruce-Box. I tried via CIFS and alternatively via NFS:- Created a subdir /mnt/test
- Mount via nfs (mount -t nfs Source-IP:/data/musik /mnt/test) failed with mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting 192.168.1.20:/data/musik
- Mount via CIFS (mount -t cifs -o user=nede,domain=NAS4-worli //Source-IP/musik /mnt/test) asked me correctly to Enter the Password for the user and finshed. But when I go to /mnt/test and do a "ls" nothing comes. After a couple of minutes I cancelled with Ctrl+C.
When I do same from my Debian Server (is on same Switch as the Target-Box) everything is working fine. NFS as well as CIFS. I didnt look into the NIC config of Debuan. But I am quite sure the am not on Jumbo Frames with the MTU.
Will change this now back on the boxes to the default MTU and will try again.
- WorliApr 25, 2020Tutor
Hi Stephen, I think the MTU size (at 9000) was the root cause! After changing it on both boxes back to 1500 and a reboot everything worked. I successfully tried via NFS, SMB and Rsync.
But first I had to delete the existing backup-jobs and had to create new ones. The old ones were not working! Whyever...
Wow, this is really absolutely unexpected. Strange, because from all other devices on the network it was always working! No matter which OS, Windows as well as Linux.
However, many thanks Stephen for your help and especially also for your patience which I really appreciate. May be I get ometimes to opportunity to help you too!!!:smileyvery-happy:
- StephenBApr 25, 2020Guru - Experienced User
Worli wrote:
Hi Stephen, I think the MTU size (at 9000) was the root cause! After changing it on both boxes back to 1500 and a reboot everything worked. I successfully tried via NFS, SMB and Rsync.
Wow, this is really absolutely unexpected.
Great! If you want to probe further, you could re-enable the jumbo frames, and then probe the path MTU between the NAS with ping (using the option to block packet fragmentation). My guess is that there's a switch on the path that doesn't support ethernet frames this large (though it might still support jumbo frames with a somewhat smaller MTU).
Or leave well enough alone. Jumbo frames don't always help performance - the main benefit is that they reduce the packets-per-second processing in the ethernet clients, which can reduce their CPU load. It doesn't matter much to the network itself - the overhead savings are inconsequential.
Worli wrote:
However, many thanks Stephen for your help
I'm happy to help, and I'm glad you got it figured out.
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!