I upgraded my old [truenas 12] BSD system [core] to an all new server using Scale [linux] and one feature that seems to be missing is that it no longer advertises NFS file shares. They of course can be manually mounted if you already know the path. SMB shares are properly advertised with AVAHI, Is there any plan to implement this feature? While not 100% “necessary” it is a significant ease of use enhancement. I have look and see a few other people comment about it but no solution given.
We removed that in TrueNAS 13 because there were no clear standards about what is expected from an NFS protocol advertisement over mDNS. A few different vendors do things, but they are generally somewhat inconsistent and not very practical, especially when you consider that there are other standardized mechanisms for discovering NFS resources on a network.
1 Like
Thank you for your reply. That explains why it used to work and now does not.
Do we have any documentation on this?
Like a note that truenas does not currently support NFS and auto-discovery / mDNS?
Also a note someplace that “sudo showmount -e IP-address” is how to find mountpoint form a remote system could be useful for non experienced users.
I hope they can standardize the protocol because its a very useful feature. Especially in light that SMB can do this.
Well, the advertisement for NFS was removed in 2021. It was part of an overall refactor to remove a lot of server type announcements over mDNS that don’t make sense. The reasoning for this was pretty simple: if a server announces too many services then legacy unicast mDNS browsers can break. At the same time we removed the following: NFS, FTP, iscsi, ssh, sftp, tftp, and webdav mDNS service record announcements. NAS-111526
mDNS + NFS doesn’t make much sense in my opinion. Most people who heavily use NFS for work will use proper DNS for handling SRV records. This is in fact mandatory to use KRB5 + NFS (which is the only way to have proper authentication / authorization for NFS).
Honestly, we have mDNS for SMB solely for the case of MacOS + time machine.
1 Like
Well that sounds reasonable but disappointing.
Perhaps it will be revisited in the future, and you can just toggle what parts you need.
Thank you for your time. At least I know its intentional and there is not a hidden switch/fix I missed.
I guess I need to look more into DNS and SRV records..