Mounted nfs share from unraid nvme storage in Rb5009 as i wanted to use nfs mount in /app storage. But it's not listing in /app settings. Then decided to check performance using /disk/test and resulting 66Mbps 
But the same share through smb mount giving 2Gbps speed in /disk/test. Both unraid server and rb5009 connected in same vlan through crs310-8g 2.5g switch.
It happens in 7.20.7 as well latest beta.
/app storage has to be a raw disk formatted with ext4 or btrfs. it cannot be done on NFS.
however, there exists a loopmount feature where you can create a disk of type “file”, that exists on some other storage (presumably can also be on an NFS mount), and that disk can then be formatted as ext4 and have a “slot” name, which you can then see in /app.
That extra layer probably does not make it faster… but you should test it from a container.
Will try this, but i read that container storage can be in nfs mount, so expected to support in /app section also.
In any case, why nfs is very slow compared to smb? I expected the reverse
From what I understood no containers apps can be hosted/ran from anything like a remote nfs/smb on the way its implemented on RouterOS ? The data-partitions/config-settings can.
RouterOS cannot create proper symlinks or resolve relative symlinks inside OCI layers I’ve read.
I was using this the other day for APP's, like he said you need to make an image and then format it ext4 etc.
sudo apt install ufw
2049/tcp ALLOW 192.168.0.254
2049/udp ALLOW 192.168.0.254
111/udp ALLOW 192.168.0.254
111/tcp ALLOW 192.168.0.254
nfs share
sudo apt update && sudo apt install nfs-kernel-server -y
mkdir -p /srv/nfs/mikrotik
sudo chown -R nobody:nogroup /srv/nfs/mikrotik
sudo chmod -R 777 /srv/nfs/mikrotik/
sudo nano /etc/exports
/srv/nfs/mikrotik 192.168.0.254(rw,sync,no_root_squash,no_subtree_check,insecure)
sudo exportfs -ra
sudo mount -t nfs 192.168.0.254:/srv/nfs/mikrotik /mnt/nfs_raw
sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/srv/nfs/mikrotik/container_disk.img bs=1M count=10240
sudo mkfs.ext4 /srv/nfs/mikrotik/container_disk.img
mikrotik
/disk add type=file file-path=container_ext4/container_disk.img slot=container_block
/disk add type=nfs nfs-address=192.168.0.5 nfs-share=/srv/nfs/mikrotik/container_disk.img slot=container_final
/disk add type=nfs nfs-address=192.168.0.5 nfs-share=/srv/nfs/mikrotik/container_disk.img slot=container_ext4
/disk
add file-path=/nfs_raw/container_disk.img slot=container_block type=file
add file-path=/container_block/swap file-size=4.9GiB slot=file-container_block-swap swap=yes type=file
add nfs-address=192.168.0.5 nfs-share=/srv/nfs/mikrotik slot=nfs_raw type=nfs
It is advisable to closely read the documentation… it says:
Choose the storage disk for application installation. The system automatically detects available formatted disks (nvme1, usb1, disk1, etc.). If no suitable disk appears, it must be formatted with ext4 or btrfs and mounted via /disk menu.
The storage must be a storage disk. Formatted as ext4 or btrfs. Not a location in the filesystem tree that could be an NFS mount. It is not clear to me why this is, maybe to avoid having to deal with disks that do not have Unix-like attribute support (e.g. FAT32), one would think NFS was ok.
I don’t know the reason for your NFS performance problem. It may be just the test, when I try it here I see much better performance for write than for the (default) read.
I only got 64Mbps from an rpi with nfs
NFSv3 also uses some high ports for the RPC communications, you may have to open as well, the command rpcinfo -p will give you the list. By default and off the top of my head, these ports are 32000 and higher.
For the type, is there a "nfs4"?
Thank you @pe1chl and @ToTheFull Added the disc image file and formatted in ext4. After that i could select in /app.
/disk add type=file file-path=nas-share/container_disk.img slot=container_block file-size=20480M
/disk/format container_block file-system=ext4
Ok and now what matters is if it performs reasonably in your app…
I ran pi-hole for a few days on my ax2 and honestly it was good, on the other hand I tried Technitium and it was garbage. I also ran Alpine and installed iperf3 which gave me pretty good results as a basic network tool. Would I use it in any serious use case prolly not, but for curiosity it scratched an itch. I think it's very immature in it's implementation atm ie I would want to be able to use cloudflared as a back-end for pi-hole etc. Technitium I couldn't get DoH working out the box without conflict, silly things like that. I could go on but I wont. I'll give it another go in a few months again.
We did some testing on full linux setup (linux server, linux client) and we found out that nfs4 can have much worse performance than nfs3 ... and that's even common knowledge (or perhaps not so much, it did surprise us). I don't know if it's possible to select NFSv3 when setting up NFS client in ROS, but you may want to try that. NFSv4 comes with some additional functionality (when compared to NFSv3) and if you don't require that functionality, NFSv3 might be better choice.
I was under the impression RouterOS is NFSV4 only. Would be nice to clear this point up. @normis ?
Edit: The bot says
ROSE-storage supports NFS versions 4.2, 4.1, 4.0, 3, and 2.
When mounting, we try them in this order: 4.2 → 4.1 → 4.0 → 3 → 2.
You may be able to force it in the server, in /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server, add --no-nfs-version 4 to the variable RPCMOUNTDOPTS and restart nfs-kernel-server