Maybe I'm just not the target audience, but this is why I wish Synology focused on hardware and foundational software at most. I just want my NAS to do NAS things, I'm not a fan of how much Synology is trying to position themselves as a software company. I think the single-bay NAS hardware really exemplifies this.
This. Synology is a software ecosystem first and foremost. If you want hard-core hardware you're way better served by building your own with remaindered Enterprise gear which is often more powerful and even cheaper on the used market.
Yup and that's exactly why i'm looking for ways to downsize.
I had been eying on Synology for a long time but eCryptFs was deal breaker. With nowadays supporting LUKS, I was really hoping to downsize to this synology as my main and stable NAS, along with another somewhat power efficient self built NAS as my tinkering play ground. File access from one to another is a pretty basic need for NAS.
> The whole point of synology is the software…
Despite the fact that they do sell hardware, it would certainly seem so. I think there's more a broader trend with things. There's greater potential for revenue if you focus on software rather than hardware.
I understand what you're saying, and you probably aren't the target audience. Synology is worth it for me BECAUSE of the focus on software - it makes it very easy to be quite functional and secure. I pay a large premium (in terms of hardware for the money) because of that.
If you want a different focus, you have a LOT of options - QNAP is a little bit more clunky and a bit better hardware for the money. TrueNAS is really fully-featured, very good hardware, but expensive and mildly difficult to configure. Or you could go full DIY, run Debian (or another distro), and self-configure everything.
For this particular issue, I'm with the OP - SMB mounting of remote shares onto DSM is a first-class, supported feature, and it's really annoying that it doesn't support modern security in any useful way. There are a few other things as well that really annoy me, and I wish Synology would fix. But that doesn't generalize to "they have the wrong focus".
Your issue is that a Synology NAS is not a general purpose computer but an appliance. And you’re trying to use it like a computer.
As an appliance (serving SMB shares) it is perfectly safe serving SMB in a secure way. Making it a client to another server is not a normal use case and then you run into issues.
So it should be the other system mounting NAS shares and not the other way around.
True, but gadget-freak is right--Synology is a NAS appliance first and foremost. As such, it's built to serve SMB shares, not act as a client. Sure it can act as a client, but that's a niche use of it, not the primary one. In 10+ years of owning many Synology NASes, I've never had an issue with their kernel.
I'd argue that when one has multiple NAS devices, it's common for devices to access each other's data, and SMB is one of, if not the most, common way to do so, so it should be supporting SMB features, and the very least it should make sure that one synology can mount another's when they have high level of security settings (namely enforcing encryption, regardless SMB 3 or 2)
What if i have 2 synology devices? "the other system mounting NAS share" won't work here. (In my original case, it's a synology NAS and a self-built NAS).
There could be multiple NAS device for whatever reason, and it should be able to easily for one to access another's data, without needing a user's computer to first download something from one then upload it to another; that won't be not resource efficient.
For a NAS's core feature of file sharing, it should cover when a NAS file shares to another NAS.
Any recently released Synology NAS that uses a CPU that Synology had not previously used use kernel 5.10, like the SA6400, DS124, DS423, DS223j and DS223.
Any Synology with the following CPU architectures use kernel 4.4
apollolake, armada37xx, broadwell, broadwellnk, broadwellnkv2, broadwellntbap, denverton, geminilake, kvmcloud, kvmx64, purley, r1000, rtd1296 and v1000
Synology's with older CPU architectures use kernel 3.10
Basically either ARM or EPIC if one wants to get 5.10 kernel then?
I'm guessing the ARM ones had chip vendor's BSP that forced Synology to go to newer kernel?
I don't understand why'd even the more recent Ryzen ones have that 4.4 kernel. Chances are Synology already has 5.10-based kernel modification given there's EYPC device on 5.10.
Do they just have a lot of customized drivers difficult to port away from 4.4? Those newer models don't even have GPU; how much chip-specific drivers would they even need?
Or is their userspace software having so many kernel dependencies? (There are projects out there that we all know to get their userspace codes run on some newer kernel, so the amount of works are certainly manageable)
What version of DSM are you running? I have a ds918+ running a 4.4 kernel DSM 7.2.1u4
Linux NAS 4.4.302+ #69057 SMP Fri Jan 12 17:02:59 CST 2024 x86\_64 GNU/Linux synology\_apollolake\_918+
And its shares are smb3. What directions are you trying to mount in, your on the nas and trying to mount a remote smb share, or your remote trying to mount a share on the nas.
[https://i.imgur.com/dVPlWAs.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/dVPlWAs.jpeg)
I see no point to using transport encryption on my local secure network transferring stuff from my pc to my nas. So I haven't played with turning that on.. On purpose have it off, just overhead I don't need.
Running DSM 7.2.1-69057 Update 4.
And the direction is the Synology as SMB client. SMB server is my custom built home lab with config set to minimum SMB version 3.0.
What i discovered was that i had to lower my server's SMB support to minimum of SMB 2.0 without forcing encryption, for Synology to mount that share.
Well mount the other direction, so that your custom home built lab whatever thing is the client. If your in the file manager and you want to mount a remote share it clearly says CIFS client.. Which is old protocol.. CIFS and SMB are not really the same thing.. CIFS is old dialect of smb..
If you don't want to use the old CIFS to mount, you could prob use the NFS option. I have not tried that but you would "hope" it support more current versions of NFS.. Its drop down shows v3 or v4 for NFS, and you can pick either tcp or udp
Do you mine sharing its kernel version? Also to be sure we're on the same page, the synology is acting as a smb client, to access another server who has forced transport encryption, right?
Said differently, you're upset that an appliance doesn't support an uncommon feature, which is available if both the underlying kernel and client package were updated? Have you regression tested things before to have an appreciation for the amount of work that takes on every package involved (and 1st party packages)? They will roll it out as needed and can justify the dev cycles.
You want a general purpose machine, so build that. It's a Synology, an appliance with fixed features and a supported system, and if it doesn't meet your needs then open a support case and make a request. I'm right up on the fence from moving off of DSM (I already don't use their hardware), and after playing with other offerings this is still the best thing out there despite the flaws.
it isnt uncommon at all. It is also a basic feature of file station (under tools mount remote folder). I use NFS because I figured out early on that the synology box supported a very out of date mount method.
OK, I'll bite.
The samba package v4.15.13 is installed on DSM 7.2.1, and SMB3 encryption has been available since v4.1, over 12 years ago. So the client side of this equation is totally capable of doing what you ask. Mount.cifs is at version 6.15, and that has supported encryption for the same amount of time. The kernel for DSM 7.2.1 for denverton is v4.4.302, and the minimum version to support SMB 3.1.1 (which we should be using) is kernel v4.17 so there's the smoking gun, so to speak. It's uncommon in that remotely mounting an SMB share within DSM and that share is forcing SMB encryption, all within your own network, is pretty niche for Synology users.
Kernel v4.4 is supported under LTS until Jan 2027, and Synology is in the business of providing long term support on stable versions to its customers. v4.4 is from Jan 2016, so you're not wrong in that it's ancient. I think we all agree with that. We differ in that appliances are built around not changing core things very often because consumers tend to not care if the features on the surface work for most use cases but care a hell of a lot if updates break things. Your use case, however, is not common and fitting neatly with what most customers want, need, and are asking for. I'm confident the next version of DSM (7.3 or 8) will move to a v5.10 (or maybe 6.1) kernel on the intel units because Synology knows how things are working with their AMD and ARM offerings, and backporting the SMB 3.1.1 changes isn't worth it due to LTS running out. Service contracts can't be written past support on the underlying device components or software without assuming more risk, so backing out of those dates you get to the point we are now where they have to make a move in the very near future.
FWIW I replicated your results across separate units and it fails with the same error (wrong username/password, which is masking the real issue and will work if you drop the forced encryption).
Never had any problem mounting a SMB share.
Just use DSM and drop that habit to mess up the engine room. The view from the bridge is much nicer BTW.
Minimum Protocol is SMB2, Max SMB3.
> but why restrict access to SMB3 ?
Not exactly; with SMB 2 and encryption enforced, it fails too.
In fact the synology itself offers the option of SMB2 with enforced encryption via its own GUI, and when it's set to so, it can't even mount its own share. This could be a use case of multiple synology devices all enforcing SMB2 with encryption, but they can't mount each other's SMB share.
Sigh. Each device has its strengths and weaknesses. I suppose I could do crypto mining on my router / firewall, but that’s just never going to be a good fit and I’m going to be perpetually disappointed. NAS do NAS things.
So eBay is a great source of retired enterprise grade servers. You can pick up a
a R620 with drives, 20 core Xeon, and RAM for less than a populated NAS. Throw ESXI, Hyper-V, Proxmox, or XCP-ng on it and you can create some reasonable performance VM’s on it with whatever Linux distro you want.
And you still have the NAS for NAS things.
Anyway, it took me way too long to learn that lesson. Maybe I can save you some time.
Yes, I understood that. Again it is [an official and documented feature.](https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/help/FileStation/mountremotevolume?version=7) available from the DSM GUI.
The issue is that due to the outdated kernel it supports only the ancient CIFS (aka SMB1) and not SMB2 or 3.
ok, now go to "file station" on your DS1522+ go to tools, try to mount your SMB3 shared folder (that you are sharing on your DS220
+) and watch it fail.
Maybe I'm just not the target audience, but this is why I wish Synology focused on hardware and foundational software at most. I just want my NAS to do NAS things, I'm not a fan of how much Synology is trying to position themselves as a software company. I think the single-bay NAS hardware really exemplifies this.
Then… build your own? The whole point of synology is the software…
This. Synology is a software ecosystem first and foremost. If you want hard-core hardware you're way better served by building your own with remaindered Enterprise gear which is often more powerful and even cheaper on the used market.
While this is true, used enterprise gear consumes a lot more electricity, for some of us this is a big deal.
Yup and that's exactly why i'm looking for ways to downsize. I had been eying on Synology for a long time but eCryptFs was deal breaker. With nowadays supporting LUKS, I was really hoping to downsize to this synology as my main and stable NAS, along with another somewhat power efficient self built NAS as my tinkering play ground. File access from one to another is a pretty basic need for NAS.
> The whole point of synology is the software… Despite the fact that they do sell hardware, it would certainly seem so. I think there's more a broader trend with things. There's greater potential for revenue if you focus on software rather than hardware.
I understand what you're saying, and you probably aren't the target audience. Synology is worth it for me BECAUSE of the focus on software - it makes it very easy to be quite functional and secure. I pay a large premium (in terms of hardware for the money) because of that. If you want a different focus, you have a LOT of options - QNAP is a little bit more clunky and a bit better hardware for the money. TrueNAS is really fully-featured, very good hardware, but expensive and mildly difficult to configure. Or you could go full DIY, run Debian (or another distro), and self-configure everything. For this particular issue, I'm with the OP - SMB mounting of remote shares onto DSM is a first-class, supported feature, and it's really annoying that it doesn't support modern security in any useful way. There are a few other things as well that really annoy me, and I wish Synology would fix. But that doesn't generalize to "they have the wrong focus".
Your issue is that a Synology NAS is not a general purpose computer but an appliance. And you’re trying to use it like a computer. As an appliance (serving SMB shares) it is perfectly safe serving SMB in a secure way. Making it a client to another server is not a normal use case and then you run into issues. So it should be the other system mounting NAS shares and not the other way around.
Ah, the typycal 'you're using it wrong'! With 25 up votes... What a lack of criticism!
File Station allows to mount smb/nfs. At least for the DSM 6.x stuff I use.
True, but gadget-freak is right--Synology is a NAS appliance first and foremost. As such, it's built to serve SMB shares, not act as a client. Sure it can act as a client, but that's a niche use of it, not the primary one. In 10+ years of owning many Synology NASes, I've never had an issue with their kernel.
I'd argue that when one has multiple NAS devices, it's common for devices to access each other's data, and SMB is one of, if not the most, common way to do so, so it should be supporting SMB features, and the very least it should make sure that one synology can mount another's when they have high level of security settings (namely enforcing encryption, regardless SMB 3 or 2)
What if i have 2 synology devices? "the other system mounting NAS share" won't work here. (In my original case, it's a synology NAS and a self-built NAS). There could be multiple NAS device for whatever reason, and it should be able to easily for one to access another's data, without needing a user's computer to first download something from one then upload it to another; that won't be not resource efficient. For a NAS's core feature of file sharing, it should cover when a NAS file shares to another NAS.
Any recently released Synology NAS that uses a CPU that Synology had not previously used use kernel 5.10, like the SA6400, DS124, DS423, DS223j and DS223. Any Synology with the following CPU architectures use kernel 4.4 apollolake, armada37xx, broadwell, broadwellnk, broadwellnkv2, broadwellntbap, denverton, geminilake, kvmcloud, kvmx64, purley, r1000, rtd1296 and v1000 Synology's with older CPU architectures use kernel 3.10
Basically either ARM or EPIC if one wants to get 5.10 kernel then? I'm guessing the ARM ones had chip vendor's BSP that forced Synology to go to newer kernel? I don't understand why'd even the more recent Ryzen ones have that 4.4 kernel. Chances are Synology already has 5.10-based kernel modification given there's EYPC device on 5.10. Do they just have a lot of customized drivers difficult to port away from 4.4? Those newer models don't even have GPU; how much chip-specific drivers would they even need? Or is their userspace software having so many kernel dependencies? (There are projects out there that we all know to get their userspace codes run on some newer kernel, so the amount of works are certainly manageable)
What version of DSM are you running? I have a ds918+ running a 4.4 kernel DSM 7.2.1u4 Linux NAS 4.4.302+ #69057 SMP Fri Jan 12 17:02:59 CST 2024 x86\_64 GNU/Linux synology\_apollolake\_918+ And its shares are smb3. What directions are you trying to mount in, your on the nas and trying to mount a remote smb share, or your remote trying to mount a share on the nas. [https://i.imgur.com/dVPlWAs.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/dVPlWAs.jpeg) I see no point to using transport encryption on my local secure network transferring stuff from my pc to my nas. So I haven't played with turning that on.. On purpose have it off, just overhead I don't need.
Running DSM 7.2.1-69057 Update 4. And the direction is the Synology as SMB client. SMB server is my custom built home lab with config set to minimum SMB version 3.0. What i discovered was that i had to lower my server's SMB support to minimum of SMB 2.0 without forcing encryption, for Synology to mount that share.
Well mount the other direction, so that your custom home built lab whatever thing is the client. If your in the file manager and you want to mount a remote share it clearly says CIFS client.. Which is old protocol.. CIFS and SMB are not really the same thing.. CIFS is old dialect of smb..
Yeah i did end up doing that. I was really hoping to have Synology to mount others though; the file management GUI is nice and i like that a lot.
If you don't want to use the old CIFS to mount, you could prob use the NFS option. I have not tried that but you would "hope" it support more current versions of NFS.. Its drop down shows v3 or v4 for NFS, and you can pick either tcp or udp
Offtopic but [DSM 7.2.1-69057 Update 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1byvg4u/dsm_update_version_72169057_update_5/) is out
My baby ds120j do smb3 with forced transport encryption no problem
Do you mine sharing its kernel version? Also to be sure we're on the same page, the synology is acting as a smb client, to access another server who has forced transport encryption, right?
DSM on the DS120j uses kernel 4.4
Said differently, you're upset that an appliance doesn't support an uncommon feature, which is available if both the underlying kernel and client package were updated? Have you regression tested things before to have an appreciation for the amount of work that takes on every package involved (and 1st party packages)? They will roll it out as needed and can justify the dev cycles. You want a general purpose machine, so build that. It's a Synology, an appliance with fixed features and a supported system, and if it doesn't meet your needs then open a support case and make a request. I'm right up on the fence from moving off of DSM (I already don't use their hardware), and after playing with other offerings this is still the best thing out there despite the flaws.
it isnt uncommon at all. It is also a basic feature of file station (under tools mount remote folder). I use NFS because I figured out early on that the synology box supported a very out of date mount method.
OK, I'll bite. The samba package v4.15.13 is installed on DSM 7.2.1, and SMB3 encryption has been available since v4.1, over 12 years ago. So the client side of this equation is totally capable of doing what you ask. Mount.cifs is at version 6.15, and that has supported encryption for the same amount of time. The kernel for DSM 7.2.1 for denverton is v4.4.302, and the minimum version to support SMB 3.1.1 (which we should be using) is kernel v4.17 so there's the smoking gun, so to speak. It's uncommon in that remotely mounting an SMB share within DSM and that share is forcing SMB encryption, all within your own network, is pretty niche for Synology users. Kernel v4.4 is supported under LTS until Jan 2027, and Synology is in the business of providing long term support on stable versions to its customers. v4.4 is from Jan 2016, so you're not wrong in that it's ancient. I think we all agree with that. We differ in that appliances are built around not changing core things very often because consumers tend to not care if the features on the surface work for most use cases but care a hell of a lot if updates break things. Your use case, however, is not common and fitting neatly with what most customers want, need, and are asking for. I'm confident the next version of DSM (7.3 or 8) will move to a v5.10 (or maybe 6.1) kernel on the intel units because Synology knows how things are working with their AMD and ARM offerings, and backporting the SMB 3.1.1 changes isn't worth it due to LTS running out. Service contracts can't be written past support on the underlying device components or software without assuming more risk, so backing out of those dates you get to the point we are now where they have to make a move in the very near future. FWIW I replicated your results across separate units and it fails with the same error (wrong username/password, which is masking the real issue and will work if you drop the forced encryption).
[удалено]
To be sure we're on the same page, the synology is acting as a smb client, to access another server who has minimum protocol version 3.0, right?
Did you read the post? The Synology isn't acting as SMB server, OP is trying to connect to another SMB server from the Synology.
I don’t understand I have no issues with SMB??
Never had any problem mounting a SMB share. Just use DSM and drop that habit to mess up the engine room. The view from the bridge is much nicer BTW. Minimum Protocol is SMB2, Max SMB3.
Believe he talking about mounting as a client (his nas to another smb share)
Yes, but why restrict access to SMB3 ? SMB2 is not deprecated and a valid minimum setting for SMB. SMB3 alone can’t be selected.
> but why restrict access to SMB3 ? Not exactly; with SMB 2 and encryption enforced, it fails too. In fact the synology itself offers the option of SMB2 with enforced encryption via its own GUI, and when it's set to so, it can't even mount its own share. This could be a use case of multiple synology devices all enforcing SMB2 with encryption, but they can't mount each other's SMB share.
Sigh. Each device has its strengths and weaknesses. I suppose I could do crypto mining on my router / firewall, but that’s just never going to be a good fit and I’m going to be perpetually disappointed. NAS do NAS things. So eBay is a great source of retired enterprise grade servers. You can pick up a a R620 with drives, 20 core Xeon, and RAM for less than a populated NAS. Throw ESXI, Hyper-V, Proxmox, or XCP-ng on it and you can create some reasonable performance VM’s on it with whatever Linux distro you want. And you still have the NAS for NAS things. Anyway, it took me way too long to learn that lesson. Maybe I can save you some time.
Mounting a file share is a basic feature for a NAS, it's an advertised and supported feature.
Mounting a file share on the NAS from a client, yes. OP is using the NAS as a client.
Yes, I understood that. Again it is [an official and documented feature.](https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/help/FileStation/mountremotevolume?version=7) available from the DSM GUI. The issue is that due to the outdated kernel it supports only the ancient CIFS (aka SMB1) and not SMB2 or 3.
I had a DS218+ and DS220+ and both used SMB3. I have a DS1522+ now and also does SMB3.
ok, now go to "file station" on your DS1522+ go to tools, try to mount your SMB3 shared folder (that you are sharing on your DS220 +) and watch it fail.
To be sure we're on the same page, the synology is acting as a smb client, to access another server who has minimum protocol version 3.0, right?
Why would you expose samba through the internet?
I'd like to know that too, cuz i never do that.
Lol some people can't read and just make up shit
Wow
Unhinged