SMB2 (or SMB3) support must be supported NOW!

hi @Alan_77 I am using in one location a Mac mini with the Apple Music library stored on its local SSD and shared with the Sonos system. The files on the Mac are synchronised with the Synology NAS using the Synology Drive Client for backup reasons. I am not using the Apple Music cloud service. 

In your situation I really like the SMB v1 Gateway solution, on a Pi or any other SMB v1 supporting system that does not contain important data.

There are several steps to get it working but you do that once, make a backup SD card and never have to do it again. In my case, since the gateway is not visible outside my local network I just set it up and let it run. I feel no need to do OS updates or anything else after the initial setup.

Before rebooting it in an attempt to get the album art working again my Sonos/Pi had been running about 150 days with me never logging in to do anything.

The new-NAS puts you in the same situation as the SMB v1 NAS for Sonos which is what I’m running here. Less user setup, more money and you need to remember to not let any connected system put important data on it.

You do not need to use SMB v1 for any connection but to your Sonos so you could connect your NAS devices together using SMB 2/3 to copy/paste music data between. That wouldn’t be a great solution, a NAS based tool like rsync would be much preferred.

How the SMBv1 vulnerabilities leak between machines is beyond my skill-set, I don’t do Windows or Mac so I rarely use it. I do know with the gateway setup and a read-only NFS link from your other NAS there is no issue.

If looking at an older NAS that is going to connect outside your LAN (many need to do so) beware the end of life issue. My MyBook Live went out of support a year after I got it and I felt it was unsafe to have running. I did block it at the firewall and as it was IPv4 only that was simple, a newer IPv6 capable device can be much more difficult to block.

Hi All,

I hope someone on here can help advise me.

I have read through the majority of this discussion and am considering various options between:

1. (preferred option) Buying yet another NAS (I just bought 2 DS220j’s recently in addition to a DS213j I already had so originally intending 2 NAS drives I’d be ending up with 4!!) - a cheap one which I would use locally not connected to the internet and just for Sonos
2. Deciding I am probably safe to continue linking my (very) old Sonos setup (think Zoneplayer 100) to my new Synology NAS running DSM 7 and choosing to ignore the warnings and use SMB1 &  NTLMv1 to keep my Sonos system working despite having a much better NAS solution which warns me otherwise not to mention the warnings on this forum - on the basis that an attack would need to guess my passwords and they are very secure (with admin account disabled on my NAS for example)
3. Adopting Stan’s pi solution (though I do have some questions about that and it does look a little involved)
4. Using Plex which I can install on my NAS server and accessing my music library via Plex (though not really sure I like the idea of the extra unnecessary layer and change in interface and potentially useability - e.g. does Plex import Apple Music playlists and present them via the Sonos controller in the same way?)

For context I’ve used Sonos for years and always with a NAS so that I can connect to it quickly without the need for computers to be running. 

So I am favouring option 1.

I now have 3 NAS devices in different locations synchronising to each other via the internet (Quickconnect) on a semi-regular basis. As my music library is important to me I’d like to keep a copy backed up on these devices but would have it on a new 4th NAS connected to my local network.

With this setup I would then need to synchronise this new NAS (I’m thinking something like a cheap old Buffalo Linkstation) with my new DS220j NAS at home which is in turn synchronising across the internet with the other two. 

My question is this: if my 3 Synology NAS drives are secure running only SMB 2 & 3, NTLM disabled but one of them is connecting to the new local NAS running SMB1 to synchronise & backup my music library, could that be offering up any vulnerability as because the devices are connected? I’m pretty sure it would be completely safe as the internet connected NAS’s would be secure and only have one dedicated connection to the new NAS for synchronisation purposes (which should be safe assuming a locally setup connection (even with SMB1) for that specific purpose) - but you can never be too sure and though I know a fair bit about IT I’m not an expert at the network level so couldn’t say for sure that this would be a safe setup.

Both the Sonos connection and the sync between New NAS & DS220j would have distinct, secure and dedicated usernames & passwords.

It seems to be the best solution to continue using Sonos given I can probably pick up a smallish single bay old NAS drive for very little these days (and maybe even less given the known SMB1 issue quickly making some of these older devices pretty redundant except for very specific purposes like this).

I hope that makes sense, could someone advise?

I got my Synology already working with SMBv2 for a while and shared my experience in this post

Read the thread, particularly the post above yours.  It’s already here. 

Did you see my comment below?

“I hesitate to say this, but my Amp and Ones appear to be talking to my Synology NAS using SMB3 now.  All devices and controllers are running S2 v13.4.”

That would be great! Any news about the 65k limit?

Sonos have confirmed they are working on the issue and plan for SMB 3 support.  No date has been given, nor is that likely to be given until it arrives.

I suggest you go with Bluesound if it is that vital to you.  Not sure what the forcing was for S2 is about, none of the new functions affects the prime music playing functions, it was more to support new devices from what i can see, as well as Dolby Atmos

For sharing files on a PC, it makes sense that the PC is powered on, and running the http server. No-one needs to be logged in though, and certainly no controller needs to be running.

For sharing files from a NAS however, requiring that a PC also be powered on to run the http server as a proxy, seems sub-optimal. Else why even use a NAS: put the files on the PC in the first place.

The “correct” solution would be to run the Sonos http server on the NAS itself. This is not difficult technically, but no-one seems interested enough to do this.

Lastmuel, my apologies. Seems i was too hasty. 
The trouble is you assume the app does some work for the system once music is playing. In reality it does little, which is why you can close it without the stream stopping.  It’s just a remote control to the speakers when playing from a music share. If there was a simpler way it would have been put into effect ages ago. The firmware on the speakers does all the heavy lifting and for the older  speakers the space for adding smb 2 or 3 was insufficient. I’m sure I’d Sonos knew this 10 years ago their architecture would be different. 
S2, and newer speakers has doubtless opened up options and we now hear SMB upgrades are on the cards it’s great news. 

And again my apologies, there have been a lot of previous cases of people signing in just to troll on issues, mainly not being able to play music direct from ios devices. They post a load of negative posts only to disappear. Look back at some of the negative posts at the beginning of this thread gives you an taste too. 
 

Presumably, that means you think I’m a troll. That’s not the case.

But, I don’t enjoy discussions with someone that’s being intentionally obtuse. I guess that makes me a troll.

Regardless, I still don’t understand why this software issue couldn’t have been resolved outside of the domain of the speakers themselves - if Sonos is responsible for running an HTTP server that serves local music files to the speakers, that HTTP server could be configured to proxy bytes off of an SMBv2/3 share.

I’m happy to drop out of this conversation as there seems to be a toxic culture here. I guess that I needed to spend more time learning nomenclature and system architecture before asking a question.

Otherwise, a basic question becomes a syntactical journey on why mobile devices can’t support something entirely unrelated. It seems you lot have invested a bunch of history here and it’s not a healthy place to pose an honest query.

The service and controller application are two distinct things.  Whether or not the service is installed when the controller is installed is irrelevant. 

This is correct, but you are now talking about a service rather than the controller app. 

If your music library is located on a NAS or some other computer, it will work just fine.   If the music files are on the PC you just turned off from power, it won’t.  A better test would be replace step 3  with ‘close the Sonos controller program’ or even ‘uninstall the Sonos controller program’ for the case where the PC hold the music files.