Stale NFS file handle

[bellzerr]

When using rsync to copy from one NFS mounted filesystem to another mounted NFS, rsync displays "stale NFS file handle" while attempting to issue a chmod after each file is copied. The files appear to be written successfully but the owner and group show up as "99." The source file system is mount USB ext3 drive and the target is a Buffalo TeraStation TS-XL/R5. Thanks for any help you can offer.

[gogalthorp]

Shooting in the dark.
What file system is on the target system?
This is being done across a network???

[bellzerr]

Target is Linux on an out-of-the-box Buffalo Terastation.
Across a network, yes.

[gogalthorp]

Who owns the regular files? The more information you can provide will speed help to correct problem. Also is Suse on both boxes? How is the NFS configured? Do both boxes have a common password system?

[bellzerr]

Source: Seagate FreeAgent USB drive connected to networked Linux server (/dev/sda1) and mounted on /mnt/usb1
Source files were placed on USB drive via rsync - owned by user: seed2

Target: Buffalo TeraStation named Jupiter, NFS mounted on same Linux server, mount point /mnt/jupiter (mount jupiter:/mnt/array1/share /mnt/jupiter)
No root or seed2 users on TeraStation. Admin user is: admin

Command issued as root on Linux server: rsync -av /mnt/usb1/dirxxxx /mnt/jupiter/

Source files owned by user "seed2" which does NOT exist as a user on target (and this is my guess as to why the errors occur).

The rsync appears to be transferring files correctly with owner=99 and group=99.
All files copied result in "stale NFS file handle" message when rsync attempts a chmod.

Thanks for your perseverance.

[gogalthorp]

I see two possible solutions

1) create a user and group on the target with the same ID numbers of the owner of the transfered files.

2) since the files transfer ok change the ownership of the moved files with a script once rsync is done.

[bellzerr]

TeraStation won't let me do option one (ID number range limited to 1000-9999, mine is 503).
My fall-back plan was for option 2 but thanks for verifying my thinking.