Unable to access FreeNAS cifs share from Windows 2003(R2)

[bsphere]

I'm unable to access a share on FreeNAS over samba, but only from Windows 2003 machines. 7, 8.1, Server 2008/2012 work fine. Does anyone know of similar issues, or have a clue how to debug this?

 

[dlavigne]

In Services → CIFS is "Server maximum protocol" set to "SMB2"?

 

[bsphere]

No, minimum 2 maximum 3.

 

[dlavigne]

Change the maximum to 2. From the 9.2.x ERRATA:

If clients have problems connecting to the CIFS share, go to Services → CIFS and verify that "Server maximum protocol" is set to "SMB2".

 

[anodos]

post your smb4.conf file. It's located under /usr/local/etc
review the contents of /var/log/samba4/log.smbd and post any error messages
are you able to access the shares if you navigate via IP address?

 

[bsphere]

I can access the share from 2003 us I set min version to CORE. Max at SMB3 it still works. Is keeping it at CORE a problem for minimum?

 

[anodos]

I can access the share from 2003 us I set min version to CORE. Max at SMB3 it still works. Is keeping it at CORE a problem for minimum?

Set minimum to NT1. Server 2003 uses SMB1.

Core = archaic crap that no one should ever use
NT1 = SMB1

 

[anodos]

Post your initial smb4.conf file from before setting minimum protocol. I don't think samba should be defaulting to a minimum protocol of SMB2. This will essentially break CIFS for many clients utilizing smbclient (think networked scanners and random embedded devices).

 

[bsphere]

I changed it to NT1-SMB3. Thanks a lot for your support, it was very helpful. I will post the config in a bit.

 

[cyberjock]

There's no reason to force a minimum, really. In this case setting the minimum to 2 and max to 3 as the poster originally had would automatically exclude server 2003 because SMB2 didn't exist until Vista and Server 2008.

If people would leave the minimums alone these problems wouldn't exist... The clients will auto-negotiate the highest supported/enabled.

 

[anodos]

There's no reason to force a minimum, really. In this case setting the minimum to 2 and max to 3 as the poster originally had would automatically exclude server 2003 because SMB2 didn't exist until Vista and Server 2008.

If people would leave the minimums alone these problems wouldn't exist... The clients will auto-negotiate the highest supported/enabled.

Another reading comprehension failure on my part. :) I read it as "no minimum, maximum 3" Someone I glossed over the "2" in there. :)

 

[cyberjock]

Yeah. The real take-away from this is "don't mess with things that won't provide an improvement". In this case, the minimum value is useless unless you are trying to deliberately exclude clients. For example, if you've decided that for security reasons SMB1 shouldn't be used then you could force SMB2 but any client that is older than Vista/Server 2008 will definitely be unable to access the shares. Other than things like that, leave it alone.