So, the downsides of rolling...

[Lunar]

First off, this is not me griping and complaining. I knew the potential for breakage when I chose to run something arch based. This is just a heads up to everyone, so everyone cool their jets. Especially the linux detractors.

Ok, so if you, like me, use autofs to handle automounting your cifs shares on demand, be warned thart there appears to be a break in the cifs stack in kernel 4.13.x. After updating all I would get when trying to mount cifs shares was:

mount error(95): Operation not supported

All I had to do to fix the issue was roll back to the 4.12 kernel. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. Have a great Sunday!

 

[Simmonz]

First off, this is not me griping and complaining. I knew the potential for breakage when I chose to run something arch based. This is just a heads up to everyone, so everyone cool their jets. Especially the linux detractors.

Ok, so if you, like me, use autofs to handle automounting your cifs shares on demand, be warned thart there appears to be a break in the cifs stack in kernel 4.13.x. After updating all I would get when trying to mount cifs shares was:


All I had to do to fix the issue was roll back to the 4.12 kernel. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. Have a great Sunday!

I find less issues with rolling Linux releases than with Windows 10 which is kinda a rolling release so could be worse.

 

[naib]

seems fine here...

 uname -r && mount | grep cifs
4.13.5-gentoo
//192.168.0.2/### on /home/###/fluidServer type cifs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,vers=default,cache=strict,username=###,domain=,uid=1000,forceuid,gid=100,forcegid,addr=192.168.0.2,file_mode=0755,dir_mode=0755,nounix,serverino,mapposix,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,echo_interval=60,actimeo=1,user,_netdev)

 

[ChadD]

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=230324

Kernel 4.13 only supports SMB 3 by default, its more secure. If you specify “vers=1.0” you should be good to go... if its possible to bump up your NAS SMB to 3 if your running freenas or something that would be better. If its a silly windows share I think you can specify version 2.1

With the change to SMB3 every kernel past 4.13 is going to error out trying to mount SMB 1 unless you force it to.

In this case only partly a rolling release issue... as I understand it any Linux distro on 4.13 or better would error out the same way with a smb 1 setup. You just ran into the issue before most ubuntu users. Ideally your able to bump up to smb 3 with your setup.

 

[Lunar]

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=230324

Kernel 4.13 only supports SMB 3 by default, its more secure. If you specify “vers=1.0” you should be good to go... if its possible to bump up your NAS SMB to 3 if your running freenas or something that would be better. If its a silly windows share I think you can specify version 2.1

With the change to SMB3 every kernel past 4.13 is going to error out trying to mount SMB 1 unless you force it to.

In this case only partly a rolling release issue... as I understand it any Linux distro on 4.13 or better would error out the same way with a smb 1 setup. You just ran into the issue before most ubuntu users. Ideally your able to bump up to smb 3 with your setup.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to see what options are available in DSM on my Synology NAS. I believe it uses v2, but maybe they've added v3. I definitely don't want to use v1.

 

[Lunar]

As a follow up, looked in DSM, and it turns out that it defaults to a maximum of v2 and a minimum of v1. I've now changed that to max v3, and min v2. I wish I'd checked those options sooner, so I guess I have Linux to thank for that. Linux saves the day yet again!!!

EDIT: Just tested it on the 4.13.5 kernel, and it works like a champ now. Beautiful.

 

[ChadD]

As a follow up, looked in DSM, and it turns out that it defaults to a maximum of v2 and a minimum of v1. I've now changed that to max v3, and min v2. I wish I'd checked those options sooner, so I guess I have Linux to thank for that. Linux saves the day yet again!!!

EDIT: Just tested it on the 4.13.5 kernel, and it works like a champ now. Beautiful.

Now you should have enabled SMB direct and a bunch of performance enhancements. Hopefully you'll see a bit of a performance boost.

 

[BulletDust]

Lunar, are you running Nvidia 384.90 under 4.13?

 

[Lunar]

Lunar, are you running Nvidia 384.90 under 4.13?

Not sure to be honest. I'll have to remember to check at some point. May be a bit though, as I have a newborn (6 weeks old on Wednesday), which means I've been using my laptop way more than my desktop as of late.

 

[ChadD]

Lunar, are you running Nvidia 384.90 under 4.13?

Antergos / Arch pushed a small fix for 387 today upping arch NV to 387.12.2

According to the manjaro repos 384.90 is the current Manjaro NV driver. (they also have 384.90 in their testing and unstable repos)... they have 387.66 in their experimental repo, So I would say they are testing 387, my experience with manjaro tells me they will likely switch to 387 in a month or two, they do tend to take their time testing kernel module drivers.

 

[BulletDust]

Antergos / Arch pushed a small fix for 387 today upping arch NV to 387.12.2

According to the manjaro repos 384.90 is the current Manjaro NV driver. (they also have 384.90 in their testing and unstable repos)... they have 387.66 in their experimental repo, So I would say they are testing 387, my experience with manjaro tells me they will likely switch to 387 in a month or two, they do tend to take their time testing kernel module drivers.

Wow, 387! That's quite a jump from the latest available driver.

 

[ChadD]

Wow, 387! That's quite a jump from the latest available driver.

Beta driver line I guess.

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/...inux-solaris-and-freebsd-driver-387-12-beta-/

Interesting that Nvidia lists Linux FreeBSD AND Solaris like Solaris is its own thing.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-387.12-Linux-Beta

I'm not sure when arch added the 387 line. I no I downloaded a 387.12.2 update today and was already running 387.12. I honestly wasn't paying attention to when arch updated to 387. I'm guessing sometime last week.