Answered

Does Sonos S2 support SMB V2 V3?


I just updated flawlessly to S2 & V12. Are SMB shares with v2 or better v3 supported by now?

icon

Best answer by sjw 8 June 2020, 14:02

View original

36 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +15

I thought S2 was going to be more of a ‘from the ground up' update but its been confirmed in other thread that still only V1 is supported so maybe they've just reused the old kernel instead if the new one, despite having more room available for it now.

I expect it is on the ‘to do’ list but was expecting there to be more in the big S2 release than there is.

Thanks for the clarification!

Badge

When does s2 support SMB v3 ?

Userlevel 3
Badge +1

Nobody knows, except maybe some Sonos software engineers.

Userlevel 1
Badge

Just tested to connect my Sonos S2 installation directly to my NAS (no SMBv1 support, located on another IP subnet) and failed misserable

I guess I have to continue to run a Linux VM that acts like a SMB bridge, with one leg connecting to my NAS using SMBv3 and in parallell providing my Sonos system with a SMBv1 share to be able to enjoy my music

 

Not supporting anything higher than SMBv1 these days is just sad!

..especially when Sonos claim that they have changed to an ’all new’ operating system

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

Not supporting anything higher than SMBv1 these days is just sad!

..especially when Sonos claim that they have changed to an ’all new’ operating system

Where do they claim it is “all new”? The UX has had a refresh, for sure, but the code that runs on the players hasn’t changed much that I can tell. The switch to S2 means they have a lot more ram/flash for future expansion, but nothing so far has shown signs that much of the new capacity is in use yet.

Userlevel 1
Badge

Not supporting anything higher than SMBv1 these days is just sad!

..especially when Sonos claim that they have changed to an ’all new’ operating system

Where do they claim it is “all new”? The UX has had a refresh, for sure, but the code that runs on the players hasn’t changed much that I can tell. The switch to S2 means they have a lot more ram/flash for future expansion, but nothing so far has shown signs that much of the new capacity is in use yet.

 

Moving away from outdated unsecure protocols like SMBv1 is vital in the modern age to keep your customers safe. That is called maintenance, and I would see that as the bare minimum for both S1 and S2

SMBv2 was released in 2006 so no one can say they didn’t have time to patch their software..

 

Security aware NAS manufacturers removed support for SMBv1 a long time ago, making them unreachable for the part of Sonos customer base that own their music vs just renting it from Spotify or others

 

Ps, the ’all new’ is kind of to be expected after all the fuss Sonos made in the ads about their new cool OS combined with the drastic cut of supported products.

From a user perspective, as you say, nothing has really changed going to S2

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

Security aware NAS manufacturers removed support for SMBv1 a long time ago, making them unreachable for the part of Sonos customer base that own their music vs just renting it from Spotify or others

 

Only a problem for NAS users though. Folks using Macs or PCs to share their files don’t have the SMB problem thanks to the new https library server.

Userlevel 1
Badge

Security aware NAS manufacturers removed support for SMBv1 a long time ago, making them unreachable for the part of Sonos customer base that own their music vs just renting it from Spotify or others

 

Only a problem for NAS users though. Folks using Macs or PCs to share their files don’t have the SMB problem thanks to the new https library server.

Hi controlav,

Interesting how you again and again try to divert from the initial question 😉: Why Sonos doesn’t keep their base software updated and secure .. (the SMBv1 limitation is an example that apparently affect customers and sets the expectation about the quality of the underlaying system)

 

>> NAS vs Workaround

The logic is to have your music/files/photos on a dedicated secure (often with raid) and always on NAS reachable from all your devices in your home network (and on the road using the latest editions)

 

It’s a waste in so many ways to have a Mac/Windows host powered on just to mitigate a limitation in the Sonos implementation of a standardized protocol

Suggesting a proprietary solution is even worse as we are moving towards open source software + standards, that even giants like Microsoft have seen and implement

 

*To add SMBv2/3 should be easy to do unless the developers made a serious error in the initial implementation causing a dependency (wish I hoped had been solved in the ’new’ S2)

 

Thanks for the insight into the state of Sonos development.

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

Hi controlav,

Interesting how you again and again try to divert from the initial question 😉: Why Sonos doesn’t keep their base software updated and secure .. (the SMBv1 limitation is an example that apparently affect customers and sets the expectation about the quality of the underlaying system)

 

The answer to the original question is simple: No. Not at this time. No diversion necessary.

The reason for SMBv1 on the Sonos S1 system has been well documented for years: the players’ Linux kernel is too old to support the newer versions of Samba.

With the move to S2 there is the possibility of updating the Linux kernels on the newer devices, and when/if they do that then newer versions of Samba become available. This whole area has been de-prioritized since the popularity of streaming took off, so who knows whether it will happen.

It would take a developer a few hours to get the Sonos https library service running on any NAS that supports .Net Core. I have offered to help on other threads, but no-one seems interested in doing so.

Userlevel 1
Badge

Hi controlav,

Interesting how you again and again try to divert from the initial question 😉: Why Sonos doesn’t keep their base software updated and secure .. (the SMBv1 limitation is an example that apparently affect customers and sets the expectation about the quality of the underlaying system)

 

The answer to the original question is simple: No. Not at this time. No diversion necessary.

The reason for SMBv1 on the Sonos S1 system has been well documented for years: the players’ Linux kernel is too old to support the newer versions of Samba.

With the move to S2 there is the possibility of updating the Linux kernels on the newer devices, and when/if they do that then newer versions of Samba become available. This whole area has been de-prioritized since the popularity of streaming took off, so who knows whether it will happen.

 

Thanks for the update!

This type of honest direct answers is much more appreciated than the sugar-coated sales stuff you tried at first.

Then I know that I’ll have to continue to use my bridging VM to get access to my local music

I feel that I have just wasted a load of money, upgrading a couple of Sonos devices to be S2 compatible, but now I can’t connect my QNAP NAS because of the SMB v1 issue.

So far, there has been a single version of S2, with a few bug updates. It may be worth waiting for a full new version before throwing away your current equipment?

However, if you’re unwilling to wait, I’d be happy to purchase them for $2.00 each, plus shipping. 

Userlevel 6
Badge +15

or should I say tree-fiddy

I feel that I have just wasted a load of money, upgrading a couple of Sonos devices to be S2 compatible, but now I can’t connect my QNAP NAS because of the SMB v1 issue.

I don’t understand - if it worked before, it should still work. Surely S1 and S2 still use SMB v1

Hi controlav,

Interesting how you again and again try to divert from the initial question 😉: Why Sonos doesn’t keep their base software updated and secure .. (the SMBv1 limitation is an example that apparently affect customers and sets the expectation about the quality of the underlaying system)

 

The answer to the original question is simple: No. Not at this time. No diversion necessary.

The reason for SMBv1 on the Sonos S1 system has been well documented for years: the players’ Linux kernel is too old to support the newer versions of Samba.

With the move to S2 there is the possibility of updating the Linux kernels on the newer devices, and when/if they do that then newer versions of Samba become available. This whole area has been de-prioritized since the popularity of streaming took off, so who knows whether it will happen.

It would take a developer a few hours to get the Sonos https library service running on any NAS that supports .Net Core. I have offered to help on other threads, but no-one seems interested in doing so.


Dear Sonos Team, please get SMBv2 or SMBv3. Or at least give everybody a clear instruction how to properly configure a Linux Server (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS) to serve the good old music not available on the streaming platforms. HTTPS Library Service? How do I get this installed?

For me one strenght of SONOS (was) the easy access to a SMB-Share.

Looking forward to an update…

 

Tom

Userlevel 7
Badge +21

These instructions for SMB v1 access are targeted at a Raspberry Pi but should be easily converted for any recent Linux distribution. If you have a NAS (any share protocol) now the Gateway is the cleanest solution, if not the v1 Server version works well.

Live Journal https://stan-miller.livejournal.com/

 

I’d love to see more on the HTTPS Library Service aimed at Linux systems.

Here’s a message from one of the main developpers of Samba (Jeremy Allison):

“Just a quick warning. For now . Eventually we will pull
SMB1 support from Samba as it is too costly to maintain
resource wise. The client support will probably be
maintained a little longer, but I'm really looking
forward to removing it from the server code.

But today is not that day .”

So, Sonos devs, please get this going ASAP please!

Userlevel 7
Badge +21

Sonos may be able to get the newer options working in S2 systems but I’m pretty sure it just won’t fit into an S1 system.

Maybe drop SMB completely (freeing up some memory) and come up with a way for a NAS to connect like Windows and Mac do now?

Perhaps their plan is to completely remove NAS support and offer only online streaming.   If they do that, I’ll not be buying Sonos anymore… and selling the ones I have to some poor sucker!

Badge

Hi controlav,

Interesting how you again and again try to divert from the initial question 😉: Why Sonos doesn’t keep their base software updated and secure .. (the SMBv1 limitation is an example that apparently affect customers and sets the expectation about the quality of the underlaying system)

 

The answer to the original question is simple: No. Not at this time. No diversion necessary.

The reason for SMBv1 on the Sonos S1 system has been well documented for years: the players’ Linux kernel is too old to support the newer versions of Samba.

With the move to S2 there is the possibility of updating the Linux kernels on the newer devices, and when/if they do that then newer versions of Samba become available. This whole area has been de-prioritized since the popularity of streaming took off, so who knows whether it will happen.

It would take a developer a few hours to get the Sonos https library service running on any NAS that supports .Net Core. I have offered to help on other threads, but no-one seems interested in doing so.

 

I suspect the “move to streaming” (as a priority for Sonos) will kill the company.

If I wanted to use e.g. spotify I’d just use a Google Home Hub ..I have plenty . I can also buy them much cheaper. The Unique Selling Point  of the SONOS is the ability to actually play my own music collection. It feels like they are trying to play catch-up with what they see as “the new trend” and end up turning themselves into another me-too stream player ...where they will lose. I suspect they would do better making “apps” for the popular NAS and for desktop computers, phones etc . I suspect an “unlock your collection” works a lot better than “almost like an Alexa box”

 

 

 

Userlevel 3
Badge +3

I am keeping a eye on the SMB1 discussion as it impacts more than my SONOS system. I have Netgear NEOTV550 and Zappiti media players that also require SMB1. I just purchased the Zappiti as a replacement for the Netgear NeoTV 550’s  and did NOT notice the SMB1 only requirement until it was to late to return to Amazon.

I am using a SYNOLOGY DS1815+ NAS for all my music and videos. I expect that when SYNOLOGY launches the DSM 7.0 update they will drop support for SMB1 due to security and support issues.

 

I have stopped all purchase of SONOS and Zappiti hardware until I get a clear direction on where they are headed.

I have been a SONOS user since the product came out and the ability share my own music was a primary reason for purchasing the system. I am NOT interested in converting my system to just a “streaming service” player.

Userlevel 4
Badge +8

Here’s a message from one of the main developpers of Samba (Jeremy Allison):

“Just a quick warning. For now . Eventually we will pull
SMB1 support from Samba as it is too costly to maintain
resource wise. The client support will probably be
maintained a little longer, but I'm really looking
forward to removing it from the server code.

But today is not that day .”

So, Sonos devs, please get this going ASAP please!


Wow - I wish I had known that when I bought my Sonos setup last month. All I can hope is that if this happens, it happens within the Sonos “return and refund” period, because if it does - it’s all going back! All £1600’s worth.

My media server is Linux based (it has to be because it is also the server for my MythTV network) and if Samba ceases to support SMBv1, my audio library is going to stop functioning with Sonos…

All I can hope is that the balance between “it will cost us too much to upgrade our kernel to support SMBv2” and “we will lose too many sales if we don’t upgrade to support SMBV2 or later” will swing in our favour before then.

It seems that Sonos have had since around 2006 to prepare for an upgrade of some sort, so it’s not as if this is a surprise development that they could not have planned for...

Badge

My media server is Linux based (it has to be because it is also the server for my MythTV network) and if Samba ceases to support SMBv1, my audio library is going to stop functioning with Sonos…

 

Given you have a Linux based sever you can probably do better than SMB . Sadly no NFS v3 support. Looking at my media library it looks like an http: type address. In anycase there are DLNA servers  (if I understood more about UPnP I’d suggest that) The setup of the Sonos Media library is very clunky .

Userlevel 4
Badge +8

Given you have a Linux based sever you can probably do better than SMB . Sadly no NFS v3 support. Looking at my media library it looks like an http: type address. In anycase there are DLNA servers  (if I understood more about UPnP I’d suggest that) The setup of the Sonos Media library is very clunky .

Interesting you should say that - MythTV can apparently be set up as a DLNA server but… I couldn’t figure out how to do it!

Samba was a real pain to get working, and I have an uncomfortable feeling that it’s a major hole in my network’s security.

Perhaps I should look at Rygel, which is a DLNA server that is available from the Ubuntu/Mint repositories. I wonder if it could be any less awkward to configure than Samba?

And yes - the complete lack of NFS support by Sonos is annoying, because that is almost trivial to set up under Linux.

Reply