BACKUPMON BACKUPMON v1.8.20 -Oct 12, 2024- Backup/Restore your Router: JFFS + NVRAM + External USB Drive! CIFS/SMB/NFS! (Thread Closed!)

[visortgw]

Also, check on NAS what minimum and maximum SMB versions are enabled.

 

[Javieruu]

Correct concerning the md4 module. Only certain routers requires it.

I have one old NAS that I must connect via 2.1. 2.0 and 2.2 does not work. Yet another device is reverse, it must be set to vers 2.2. it all depends on your client that you are trying to connect to. What is the error you get when trying to manually mount the share?

Thanks for sharing that gives me hope that vers 2.1 or 2.2 could be the way to fix it

This is the error I get:

mount: mounting \\192.168.11.13\home on /tmp/mnt/backups failed: Operation not supported

 

[Javieruu]

Also, check on NAS what minimum and maximum SMB versions are enabled.

The NAS has enabled all those SMB versions

Host script results:
| smb-protocols:
| dialects:
| 2.02
| 2.10
| 3.00
| 3.02
|_ 3.11

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Thanks for sharing that gives me hope that vers 2.1 or 2.2 could be the way to fix it

This is the error I get:

mount: mounting \\192.168.11.13\home on /tmp/mnt/backups failed: Operation not supported

Can you please post the mount statement you're using that gives you this error?

And the highest SMB version that the RT-AC68U gives you is v2.0, right?

I suppose the other workaround that might be possible here is enabling NFS on your Synology (if compatible), and utilizing that method?

 

[Javieruu]

Can you please post the mount statement you're using that gives you this error?

And the highest SMB version that the RT-AC68U gives you is v2.0, right?

Hi @Viktor Jaep, here is the screenshot from Putty.

That is correct RT-AC68U gives me v2.0. as per attached picture.

 

[ColinTaylor]

Hi @Viktor Jaep, here is the screenshot from Putty.
View attachment 58569
That is correct RT-AC68U gives me v2.0. as per attached picture.

The SMB version supported by the router's Samba server has nothing to do with the SMB version supported by the CIFS client module. Do not conflate the two.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

The SMB version supported by the router's Samba server has nothing to do with the SMB version supported by the CIFS client module. Do not conflate the two.

How do you determine what versions of SMB the CIFS client module can support?

 

[Jeffrey Young]

Try

Hi @Viktor Jaep, here is the screenshot from Putty.
View attachment 58569
That is correct RT-AC68U gives me v2.0. as per attached picture.

Hoping this goes without saying, but did you change myname and mypass to the username and password of your account on your NAS?

I ask, as from the screen shot that you posted, it does not look like you did.

 

[Javieruu]

Try


Hoping this goes without saying, but did you change myname and mypass to the username and password of your account on your NAS?

I ask, as from the screen shot that you posted, it does not look like you did.

Yes, I did try with the actual NAS username and password, I got the same error message.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Yes, I did try with the actual NAS username and password, I got the same error message.

Unless there are any other ideas, I think you're at an impasse. The router only support a max of SMB v2.0. The Synology only supports a min of SMB v2.1. Unless there's some way to get your SMB stack to a higher version, your only option is to obtain a newer router. Alternatively, you could see if you can get NFS working, and see if your router and Synology can agree on that standard?

 

[Jeffrey Young]

Yes, I did try with the actual NAS username and password, I got the same error message.

The only other thing I can think of is the username or password has a character that is being misinterpreted by the shell. More the username as Vic has already base64 encoded the password in the script.

 

[Javieruu]

Thank you @Viktor Jaep and @Jeffrey Young for great ideas trying to help with this stubborn SMB topic.

I checked that the credential seems not to be an issue because with SMB v1.0 the handshake process got that far compared to SMB v2.0 not even starting the connection. However, SMB v1.0 is not an option because Synology has dropped the NTLMv1 from DSM7.0 due to security vulnerability issues, therefore Synology drops the connection before completing the handshake, as mentioned in the previous post.

On another hand, the fact the RT-AC68U and the Synology both report to have SMB v2.0 enabled but are unable to connect, makes me think about @ColinTaylor 's comments that the Samba server and CIFS might use different SMB versions.

I tried to check the CIFS SMB version in the router with the below code, however, this will only report the SMB version after a successful connection which is the actual problem to solve.

Do you know any other way to check the CIFS SMB version?
Thanks

mount \\\\192.168.11.13\\home /cifs1 -t cifs -o "username=myname,password=mypass"
df -h /cifs1

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Thank you @Viktor Jaep and @Jeffrey Young for great ideas trying to help with this stubborn SMB topic.

I checked that the credential seems not to be an issue because with SMB v1.0 the handshake process got that far compared to SMB v2.0 not even starting the connection. However, SMB v1.0 is not an option because Synology has dropped the NTLMv1 from DSM7.0 due to security vulnerability issues, therefore Synology drops the connection before completing the handshake, as mentioned in the previous post.

On another hand, the fact the RT-AC68U and the Synology both report to have SMB v2.0 enabled but are unable to connect, makes me think about @ColinTaylor 's comments that the Samba server and CIFS might use different SMB versions.

I tried to check the CIFS SMB version in the router with the below code, however, this will only report the SMB version after a successful connection which is the actual problem to solve.

Do you know any other way to check the CIFS SMB version?
Thanks

mount \\\\192.168.11.13\\home /cifs1 -t cifs -o "username=myname,password=mypass"
df -h /cifs1

From what I could find digging through our forums is that you may just be out of luck with the RT-AC68U... this is an old post from @ColinTaylor saying that SMBv1 is about as much as you're going to get out of it...

mount using SMB1 only despite vers=2.1 specified

Hi, I'm struggling to connect to SMB2+ version Synology NAS Samba shares from my RT-AC88U. No matter what version is specified in the mount options (I have tried 2.0, 2.1, 3.0), it's always only trying to connect using SMB1. Command: mount -t cifs -o username=,password=,vers=2.1 // /mnt/...

www.snbforums.com

 

[Javieruu]

From what I could find digging through our forums is that you may just be out of luck with the RT-AC68U... this is an old post from @ColinTaylor saying that SMBv1 is about as much as you're going to get out of it...

mount using SMB1 only despite vers=2.1 specified

Hi, I'm struggling to connect to SMB2+ version Synology NAS Samba shares from my RT-AC88U. No matter what version is specified in the mount options (I have tried 2.0, 2.1, 3.0), it's always only trying to connect using SMB1. Command: mount -t cifs -o username=,password=,vers=2.1 // /mnt/...

www.snbforums.com

Thank you @Viktor Jaep, it looks like I will need to upgrade the router after 12 years well of service and great fun enhancing it with all the great tools this community is creating !

Any home router recommendations for another 12 years of long lasting compatibility with Merlin, amts, and all these scripts?
I see the latest one from Asus are the GT-BE98 and RT-BE96U, a high price tag tho.

 

[visortgw]

Thank you @Viktor Jaep, it looks like I will need to upgrade the router after 12 years well of service and great fun enhancing it with all the great tools this community is creating !

Any home router recommendations for another 12 years of long lasting compatibility with Merlin, amts, and all these scripts?
I see the latest one from Asus are the GT-BE98 and RT-BE96U, a high price tag tho.

Merlin firmware does not run on GT-BE98 or RT-BE96U — IMO, either RT-AX88U Pro or GT-AX6000 is your best choice.

 

[Jeffrey Young]

The AC68U was an exceptional router with an unusually long supported life cycle. I fear we will never see another model of its style again.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Thank you @Viktor Jaep, it looks like I will need to upgrade the router after 12 years well of service and great fun enhancing it with all the great tools this community is creating !

Any home router recommendations for another 12 years of long lasting compatibility with Merlin, amts, and all these scripts?
I see the latest one from Asus are the GT-BE98 and RT-BE96U, a high price tag tho.

May it rest peacefully in Valhalla!

But the beautiful thing is that all your mods, tools and custom scripts will easily transition to your new router of choice! I second the suggestion for either a GT-AX6000 or RT-AX88U Pro

 

[visortgw]

May it rest peacefully in Valhalla!

View attachment 58645

But the beautiful thing is that all your mods, tools and custom scripts will easily transition to your new router of choice! I second the suggestion for either a GT-AX6000 or RT-AX88U Pro

And SSD storage, not USB flash drive!

 

[vibroverbus]

Tiny thing but the Status report as you backup doesn't trap for error and then pause... so if there's an error it flashes by (and if you're paged away or looking elsewhere you miss it) would be nice if that was the case? I had a path error (dumb user error) and of course I could find the error in the log but didn't know it had flashed by the first time or two...

ERROR: Errors detected creating EXT Drive tar file. Exiting Script!

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Tiny thing but the Status report as you backup doesn't trap for error and then pause... so if there's an error it flashes by (and if you're paged away or looking elsewhere you miss it) would be nice if that was the case? I had a path error (dumb user error) and of course I could find the error in the log but didn't know it had flashed by the first time or two...

ERROR: Errors detected creating EXT Drive tar file. Exiting Script!

There's several ways... You could notice by poking through your backups on occasion that they weren't complete... or just scrolling through the log and finding anything that begins with "ERROR"... or when manually running a backup, you would see a big red error in the middle of the backup output... but what would really help here is by enabling AMTM email. You would have been notified the first time it happened.