Q: Can't connect to SMB share after upgrade

Hi guys,

Woudn'have been nice if Apple released a communicate to let users know what changed exactly in Maverick in a more detailed manner ?

Like for example . . . if you used to do this . . . now in Maverick you do it like that . . .

I've never seen such a thing.

I'm glad it fixed your issue Jim.

Titus

This ZDNet article sheds a little more light on the issue and why the CIFS solution may or may not work for you.

Mavericks' SMB2 problem and fixes

Would I be correct in assuming that since we're reverting back to CIFS to get this to work that we not going to be seeing the increased performance that we should be getting from SMB2 as described in this Apple Insider story?

Apple shifts from AFP file sharing to SMB2 in OS X 10.9 Mavericks

Jim

is apple likely to put an update/fix soon for this issue?

Problem is that CIFS is forced SMB1 which is a lot slower than SMB2 or AFP.    I tried SMB1 with my Synology NAS which worked, but at a fraction of the speed I was used to with Mountain Lion. 

Better not to upgrade if you rely on SMB in your workplace..... unless you can't live without the new Pages.  (ha!)

Hi guys,

I don't think CIFS ia a forced SMB1. CIFS is just the new (more open standard) terminology for SMB wich Apple embraces to move away from Microsoft terminology. Read this article:

http://www.coderanch.com/t/204250/sockets/java/Difference-SMB-CIFS

ot this:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/34742/cifs-vs-samba-what-are-the-differe nces

I'm not sure my connection in Mountain Lion was faster (using smb) than in Mavericks (using cifs). I wish I could compare the transfer speed that I had before and after the upgrade.

One thing is for sure, my Synology NAS is using SMB2 not SMB1 (I don't have an option for SMB1), this is why did not try the workaround

Titus

Titus,

What's your method of determining whether or not you NAS is using SMB2 or not? I mean, is there something in addition to the fact that you're able to use smb://? Are you able to monitor this in some way through Activity Monitor or can you simply tell by i/o speeds?

Thanks,

Jim

I would use 'smbutil statshares -a' from terminal to check:

$ smbutil statshares -a

================================================================================ ==================

SHARE                         ATTRIBUTE TYPE                VALUE

================================================================================ ==================

NAS

                              SERVER_NAME                   DiskStation

                              USER_ID                       501

                              SMB_NEGOTIATE                 AUTO_NEGOTIATE

                              SMB_VERSION                   SMB_1

                              SMB_SHARE_TYPE                UNKNOWN

                              EXTENDED_SECURITY_SUPPORTED   TRUE

                              UNIX_SUPPORT                  TRUE

                              LARGE_FILE_SUPPORTED          TRUE

Hi Larry,

You are absolutely right, I checked and it is SMB_1.

So my NAS although I selected "Enable SMB2 and Large MTU" it uses the SMB1. I was wrong.

Guys this means definitevely Apple screw it up with SMB2 . . .Apple wake up release a patch.

It seems though the performance difference is not huge. Read below from Wikipedia.

Titus

When SMB2 was introduced it brought a number of benefits over SMB1 for third party implementers of SMB protocols. SMB1, originally designed by IBM, was reverse engineered, and later became part of a wide variety of non-Windows operating systems such as Xenix, OS/2 and VMS(Pathworks). X/Open standardised it partially; it also had draft IETF standards which lapsed. (See http://ubiqx.org/cifs/Intro.html for historical detail.) SMB2 is also a relatively clean break with the past. Microsoft's SMB1 code has to work with a large variety of SMB clients and servers. SMB1 features many versions of information for commands (selecting what structure to return for a particular request) because features such as Unicode support were retro-fitted at a later date. SMB2 involves significantly reduced compatibility-testing for implementers of the protocol. SMB2 code has considerably less complexity since far less variability exists (for example, non-Unicode code paths become redundant as SMB2 requires Unicode support).

SMB 2.1[edit]

SMB 2.1, introduced with Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2, introduced minor performance enhancements with a new opportunistic locking mechanism.^[24]

SMB 3.0[edit]

SMB 3.0 (previously named SMB 2.2)^[25] was introduced with Windows 8^[25] and Windows Server 2012.^[25] It brought several significant changes, such as the SMB Direct Protocol (SMB over RDMA) and SMB Multichannel (multiple connections per SMB session),^[26][27] that are intended to add functionality and improve SMB2 performance,^[28] notably in virtualized data centers.

Hey Apple,

**** you very much for messing up my SMB. Now I can't sync any of my **** between my non-Apple (gasp!) mobile devices and my Mac Book Pro. How about a word of warning when you decide to release a breaking fix next time. Considering how you still haven't gotten your **** together with Maps, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You guys are awesome for hardware, but we always knew your software skills were subpar.

I am using Synctoy on Windows to sync data  across multiple Macs, PCs and NAS.

Synctoy fails and runs in "loops" when syncing to a MACOS Maverick machine.

I use this fix on the Windows PC to force SMB1. Start cmd and type these 2 commands:

sc.exe config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/nsi
sc.exe config mrxsmb20 start= disabled

Now you need to reboot.

This forces Windows to use SMB1 by disabling SMB2 and higher. It fixed my issue, syncing between MAC and PC works now, slower, but it works...

To revert back to SMB2 and higher use the 2 commands with ... start= auto

on the PC and reboot

DSM 4.3-3810 has fixed this problem.

smbutil statshares -a

SHARE                         ATTRIBUTE TYPE                VALUE

installers                   

                              SERVER_NAME                   diskstation.local

                              USER_ID                       502

                              SMB_NEGOTIATE                 AUTO_NEGOTIATE

                              SMB_VERSION                   SMB_2.1

                              SMB_SHARE_TYPE                DISK

                              SIGNING_SUPPORTED             TRUE

                              EXTENDED_SECURITY_SUPPORTED   TRUE

                              LARGE_FILE_SUPPORTED          TRUE

                              FILE_IDS_SUPPORTED            TRUE

                              DFS_SUPPORTED                 TRUE

                              MULTI_CREDIT_SUPPORTED        TRUE

Thanks a lot I upgraded my Synology firmware to DSM 4.3 3810 and I have tested the connection then.

For the first time after the upgrade to Mavericks I can make an smb connection.

I checked with smbutil statshares -a   and indeed it is SMB 2.1

So whoever has like me a Synology NAS do this and it will work.

Anyway maybe it's not Apple's fault but for sure something changed in there in Mavericks compared to the previous OS, and the storage devices were not up to date.

Again, shouldn't have Apple describe or at least list all the modifications that have been made in the new version in terms of protocols, connectivity, etc.... that would affect everyone when upgrading?

They probably do this internally or to the developers but not to the end users.....

DO THEY ? I am not aware. I couldn't find anything on the Apple site regarding changes in Mavericks other than the regular new features bla bla bla marcketing stuff..

Thanks again

Titus

I have the same problem.

After upgrading for Mavericks, my Mac doesn't connect on my server Linux Samba.

The both options of http://cammodude.blogspot.com doesn't work for me.

With cli command:

mount_smbfs: server rejected the connection: Authentication error

Any suggestions ?

I can't get SMB or CIFS to work connecting to Win 2008 R2 file share. Beyond frustrating.

So, while they don't ever post a detailed Change Log, am I to assume that this clear issue with SMB2 in Mavericks isn't going to be addressed by 10.9.1?

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/21/apple-seeds-new-build-of-os-x-mavericks-10-9 -1-beta-to-developers/