I just updated flawlessly to S2 & V12. Are SMB shares with v2 or better v3 supported by now?
Best answer by Wanderlust
View original
Page 1 / 3
Userlevel 2
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 2
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Moving away from outdated unsecure protocols like SMBv1 is vital in the modern age to keep your customers safe.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
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.
Userlevel 7
+23
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.
My Sonos (S1) system was unable to find my SMB share until I turned on SMB1 and NTLMv1. Then it worked find. Does this statement “this was resolved long ago” apply to S1 systems? Because with the stock Synology setup I could easily connect to the music library from windows, using the same account that Sonos uses. But the Sonos could not see a share until I turned on SMB1, and then it could see the share, but could not access it until I turned on NTLMv1.
This is of course with a fully updated Sonos system, and fully updated Synology.
Only S2 supports SMB versions greater than SMB1. The S1 kernel was created well before any other versions existed, and cannot be updated due to size issues.
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 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.
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 2
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
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
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
+22
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.
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!
Userlevel 6
+15
or should I say tree-fiddy
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 .
I’m using SMB2 on my SYNOLOGY.
Curious as to why you’re pointing to this same thread?
It’s not a link to this thread per se, but to a post above where it’s detailed that SMB1 is now in fact no longer required for Sonos.
My experience has been the same as @buzz mentions above, in that I switched over most of my Sonos setup when S2 first became available some years ago and I switched my local Netgear OS6 NAS library to SMBv3 - (approx. 25000 tracks indexed) and it’s been fine ever since and always updates/indexes daily.
I too sometimes flip between different SMB versions, as some iOS Apps I occasionally use, support SMBv2 only, but mostly the library stays set these days to v3 and not had an issue with disconnection - it has been working fine. I can’t honestly think of a time where I needed to re-add the library path/login credentials to the Sonos App.
That is simply wrong. And the Support agents should be 100% aware of this .
Userlevel 7
+22
I’m using a Linux box, a Raspberry Pi, as my NAS and it happily sits there and works.
I’m wondering if there isn’t something that a few NAS systems are doing that cause the NAS/Sonos issues.
Samba config is dead simple:
[global]
# enable v2 authentication
min protocol = SMB2
# Do not use protocol, limits S2 to SMB2_10
#protocol = SMB2
[music]
Comment = Pi shared folder
Path = /mnt/ssd-music
Browseable = yes
Writeable = Yes
only guest = no
create mask = 0555
directory mask = 0555
Public = yes
Guest ok = yes
It appears that Sonos does now work with SMB2.
See post by Sotiris C of the 14th December on this thread:
Since over a year ago when SMB1 was dropped by ubuntu (for sound security reasons) I’ve been struggling to get my library of CD quality (16bit 44.1KHz FLAC) files to play on my Sonos. I tried Plex - this handles the art workwell but for some reason the FLAC playback is unreliable, (I Tried reinstalling plex re-registration, nothing solid I could find that would fix the issue, Some tracks would never play some tracks fine even from the same rip\encoding job. All the while MP3 to Plex to Sonos works fine.)
This morning I reconfigured my library with new share and bingo I’ve got access to my library on sonos again. Very Happy,
Kit list Ubuntu 20.04 LTS for the library share.
Sonos Play3, Beam. Controller on iOS and windows.
All upto date as of today. Sonos App 13.4.1, Sonos OS S2,
Like the content of this FAQ? Or are you asking for more information?
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.
Release notes for S2 v13.4.1 confirm support was added for SMBv2 and SMBv3 shares, installed it yesterday and it has been running great against a Synology backed library. I am very pleased that this has been finally added, getting SMBv1 out of environments is great for security!
Does anyone else have a Synology-NAS-based music library keep disappearing using smbv2?
No issues with S2 and Synology. In fact I have successfully flipped between SMBV versions while music is playing.
Page 1 / 3
Reply
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.