• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Possible to shape NFS traffic?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
shapershapingqosvpnwireguard
2 Posts 1 Posters 896 Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L
    luckman212 LAYER 8
    last edited by luckman212 Jun 5, 2022, 4:25 PM Jun 3, 2022, 1:31 AM

    Hoping someone might be able to help or at least comment on this situation.

    I have a NAS at Site A that exports a NFS v4.1 share. An Ubuntu server at Site B mounts this via TCP (default port 2049) over a site to site Wireguard VPN. The bandwidth between these sites is roughly 300Mbps. Both sides run pfSense Plus 22.05 (Site A is a 6100 and Site B is a 7100).

    Everything works "fine" but the problem is, the NFS traffic is pretty efficient at saturating the available bandwidth.

    I have other VMs running services that I need to stay responsive, so I wanted to try to shape the NFS traffic, applying FQ_CODEL or maybe even something simpler like PRIQ to cap the NFS at around 250Mbps and leave some overhead for other traffic.

    I spent around 2 days on and off monkeying around with various settings, but I just can't for the life of me get this traffic to match on the floating rules, or even on the LAN rules. When I look at the state table on the Site A router, I see established "incoming" states with dport 2049 hitting the NAS but I never see any outgoing state pointing back to the NFS client at site B. So there's nothing for me to match / limit.

    Is this because there's no NAT happening since this is all just static routing via the VPN tunnel? I am hoping maybe I'm overlooking something simple here, there must be a way to do this right?

    related r/PFSENSE thread

    L 1 Reply Last reply Jun 7, 2022, 4:49 AM Reply Quote 0
    • L
      luckman212 LAYER 8 @luckman212
      last edited by Jun 7, 2022, 4:49 AM

      I created a small tool luckman212/stv to help make it a little easier to debug states. In case it's useful to anyone else.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      2 out of 2
      • First post
        2/2
        Last post
      Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
        This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
        consent.not_received