2023-09-12, 15:59
Look at dmesg/journalctl do you see what I saw in that link I posted?
2023-09-12, 16:12
Nothing weird on NAS side (6.5.2). System seems to run fine and I can transfer files by NFSv4 back and forth w/o any issues between my Arch (also 6.5.2) and NAS. Audio glitches with music files (strangely enough video is okay) are appearing only when NAS is on Kernel 6.5.2. LibreElec 11.0.3 (Kodi 20.2.0) is throwing some warnings then, like
The NFS exports are NFSv4 but are also accessible by NFSv3, which I'm using with Kodi (again: libnfs and NFSv3 settings because I'd to reindex all media otherwiese).
kodi.log:2023-09-11 17:52:29.099 T:1250 warning <general>: CFileCache:rocess - <nfs://192.168.0.10/shares/nfs4/media/audio/Shpongle/Museum of Consciousness (2013)/02 - How The Jellyfish Jumped U
p The Mountain.flac> source read returned -4! Will retry
2023-09-11 17:53:01.117 T:1250 error <general>: Read - Error( -4, read call failed with "Command was cancelled" )
The NFS exports are NFSv4 but are also accessible by NFSv3, which I'm using with Kodi (again: libnfs and NFSv3 settings because I'd to reindex all media otherwiese).
2023-09-14, 08:08
ArchLinux released Kernel 6.5.3 yesterday which seems be in game nicely again. The only change was to disable the Kernel option
No more audio glitches!
config: Disable NFS_V4_1_MIGRATIONThis is an experimental option that should not be enabled on production systems.:- CONFIG_NFS_V4_1_MIGRATION=y
+ # CONFIG_NFS_V4_1_MIGRATION is not set
No more audio glitches!
2023-09-15, 05:30
The NFSv4.1 pieces of the Linux NFSv4 migration implementation are still experimental. If you are not an NFSv4 developer, say N here.
They honestly pushed a kernel with this enabled out on the users?
They honestly pushed a kernel with this enabled out on the users?
2023-09-15, 21:05
(2023-09-15, 05:30)fritsch Wrote: The NFSv4.1 pieces of the Linux NFSv4 migration implementation are still experimental. If you are not an NFSv4 developer, say N here.
They honestly pushed a kernel with this enabled out on the users?
Yes, but by mistake which was corrected here.
