Mount CIFS Host is downmount error 5 = Input/output errorUnable to mount XP share using fs-cifs from LinuxCannot unmount CIFS mount?Issue with mount.cifs in Ubuntu [while accessing Windows samba share using a localServerUser]Mount a samba share as regular user using cifsHow to set permissions for a CIFS mount with autofs?CIFS error -512 on a mountCifs mount hanging“Mount error 13” on CIFS connection w/o Domain AdminCIFS VFS: BAD_NETWORK_NAME on Linux
Does the Aboleth have expertise in History and Perception?
Why is there no current between two capacitors connected in series?
Schwa-less Polysyllabic German Noun Stems of Germanic Origin
400–430 degrees Celsius heated bath
1950s or earlier book with electrical currents living on Pluto
Why did Nick Fury not hesitate in blowing up the plane he thought was carrying a nuke?
Differential of a one-form eating a vector?
Why was Harry at the Weasley's at the beginning of Goblet of Fire but at the Dursleys' after?
What does it mean to "take the Cross"
What to call a small, open stone or cement reservoir that supplies fresh water from a spring or other natural source?
Why is こと used in 「私に何かできること」?
What is metrics.roc_curve and metrics.auc measuring when I'm comparing binary data with probability estimates?
How to say "invitation for war"?
Old robot movie with robots in cages being hurt at a carnival show
No Active Recurring Contributions on civi record but stripe has the data. Is there a way to resend IPN?
How is dynamic resistance of a diode modeled for large voltage variations?
Will this series of events work to drown the Tarrasque?
How to say "they didn't leave him a penny"?
What city and town structures are important in a low fantasy medieval world?
Parse a C++14 integer literal
How to use Screen Sharing if I don't know the remote Mac's IP address
tikz: 5 squares on a row, roman numbered 1 -> 5
Expand a hexagon
Vehemently against code formatting
Mount CIFS Host is down
mount error 5 = Input/output errorUnable to mount XP share using fs-cifs from LinuxCannot unmount CIFS mount?Issue with mount.cifs in Ubuntu [while accessing Windows samba share using a localServerUser]Mount a samba share as regular user using cifsHow to set permissions for a CIFS mount with autofs?CIFS error -512 on a mountCifs mount hanging“Mount error 13” on CIFS connection w/o Domain AdminCIFS VFS: BAD_NETWORK_NAME on Linux
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I have an issue with a mount point that was previously configured. It shows the folder, but the mount is missing and holds "?" values for size, permissions, etc.
So I tried to remount using cifs and the same command from before:
mount -t cifs //nas.domain.local/share /mnt/archive
But I get the error:
Host is down.
If I ping the domain or IP I get a proper resolution and I also connected using smbclient without issue
ping nas.domain.local
ping ip
smbclient //nas.domain.local/share
I looked around, but cant find a solid answer. Any thoughts?
linux centos mount cifs
add a comment |
I have an issue with a mount point that was previously configured. It shows the folder, but the mount is missing and holds "?" values for size, permissions, etc.
So I tried to remount using cifs and the same command from before:
mount -t cifs //nas.domain.local/share /mnt/archive
But I get the error:
Host is down.
If I ping the domain or IP I get a proper resolution and I also connected using smbclient without issue
ping nas.domain.local
ping ip
smbclient //nas.domain.local/share
I looked around, but cant find a solid answer. Any thoughts?
linux centos mount cifs
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
6
Add the--verboseswitch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.
– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
1
@Zoredache Add-vvvfor even more verbose information!
– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36
add a comment |
I have an issue with a mount point that was previously configured. It shows the folder, but the mount is missing and holds "?" values for size, permissions, etc.
So I tried to remount using cifs and the same command from before:
mount -t cifs //nas.domain.local/share /mnt/archive
But I get the error:
Host is down.
If I ping the domain or IP I get a proper resolution and I also connected using smbclient without issue
ping nas.domain.local
ping ip
smbclient //nas.domain.local/share
I looked around, but cant find a solid answer. Any thoughts?
linux centos mount cifs
I have an issue with a mount point that was previously configured. It shows the folder, but the mount is missing and holds "?" values for size, permissions, etc.
So I tried to remount using cifs and the same command from before:
mount -t cifs //nas.domain.local/share /mnt/archive
But I get the error:
Host is down.
If I ping the domain or IP I get a proper resolution and I also connected using smbclient without issue
ping nas.domain.local
ping ip
smbclient //nas.domain.local/share
I looked around, but cant find a solid answer. Any thoughts?
linux centos mount cifs
linux centos mount cifs
edited Aug 21 '12 at 21:17
Kevin
asked Aug 3 '12 at 17:13
KevinKevin
533168
533168
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
6
Add the--verboseswitch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.
– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
1
@Zoredache Add-vvvfor even more verbose information!
– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36
add a comment |
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
6
Add the--verboseswitch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.
– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
1
@Zoredache Add-vvvfor even more verbose information!
– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
6
6
Add the
--verbose switch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Add the
--verbose switch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
1
1
@Zoredache Add
-vvv for even more verbose information!– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36
@Zoredache Add
-vvv for even more verbose information!– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36
add a comment |
14 Answers
14
active
oldest
votes
This could also be because of a protocol mismatch.
In 2017 Microsoft patched Windows Servers and advised to disable the SMB1 protocol.
From now on, mount.cifs might have problems with the protocol negotiation.
The error displayed is "Host is down.", but when you do debug with:
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -d 256
you will get the error:
protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_RESET
To overcome this use mount or smbclient with a protocol specified.
for smbclient: add -m SMB2 (or SMB3 for the newer version of the protocol)
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -m SMB2
or for mount: add vers=2.0 (or vers=3.0 if you want to use version 3 of the protocol)
mount -t cifs //<server_ip>/<share> /mnt/<mountpoint> -o vers=2.0
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solutionsmbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256everything works perfectly but when I trymount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiersit keeps sayingmount error(112): Host is down
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
Strange. The man page says thatvers=1.0is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passedvers=1.0.
– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0
– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
add a comment |
On archlinux after a recent package update, I had to add vers=1.0 to my mount options. I'm connecting to an old centos 5 box and up until yesterday I could connect without explicitly stating a version number.
CIFS in linux kernel 4.13 now defaults to SMB 3.0 and in kernel 4.14 it tries 2.1 and higher. See this change log.
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
USB-stick at Fritz NAS showed "Host Down" for Ubuntu 17.10:
Defining the version (vers=1.0) worked - here's the full string:
sudo mount -t cifs -o vers=1.0,_netdev,username=<user>,password=<pwd>,uid=1000,gid=1000 //192.168.178.1/fritz.nas <local mountpoint>
2
Everything was working from within/etc/fstabcifs mount; afterapt upgradeon my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the-o vers=1.0did the trick. Thank you
– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
add a comment |
Similar problem after upgrade to ubuntu 17.10, with an old Buffalo Diskstation. Solved by adding in /etc/fstab the "vers=1.0" option:
//myWDhostname/partage /media/Partage cifs guest,vers=1.0 0 0
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the,vers=1.0option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…
– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
add a comment |
Sorry if this is a late response (I realise it's an old thread), however I have just discovered there is another possible reason why mount.cifs would say the host is down.
I have an antivirus with a firewall and even though I set it explicitly to allow "windows file and print sharing" -- a predefined rule, it was still blocking connections. I had that proven by disabling the firewall temporarily.
Hope this helps someone, host is down might not mean it's not responding to pings, but could mean it's not responding to authentication attempts.
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to addiptablesrules to allow them:iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPTandiptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where1.2.3.4was the server's IP address.
– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
add a comment |
I received the same error without further ado from a new Samba client, when trying to mount a CIFS SMB network share:
mount error(112): Host is down
Eventually, it turned out I had previously restricted SMB server access to only a limited number of IP addresses by configuring /etc/samba/smb.conf:
# Allow these IP Addresses to connect:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 127.0.1.13 127.0.1.63
# Anything else not allowed is, by default, rejected
hosts deny = ALL
Adding the fixed IP address of the new SMB client solved the issue in this specific case.
Of course, there is a myriad of other reasons why one may receive above-mentioned error.
add a comment |
Same trouble with Fritzbox 7490: mount error(112): Host is down
I didn't used -o vers=XX.
As fast as a shark i am, i first tried -o vers=2.0 and failed.
As soon as i used the option -o vers=1.0, everything works fine !
This works for me..
sudo mount -t cifs -o rw,username=myname_on_the_box,password=mypasswd_on_the_box,vers=1.0 //192.168.1.1/Fritz-nas /media/something/something
My env:
Client: Ubuntu 17.10 Linux 4.13.0-17-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Server: Fritzbox 7490 firmware 6.83.
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to usevers=1.0instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.
– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
add a comment |
Same trouble connecting to Synology DiskStation (DSM 4.3).
Using vers=1.0 in the mount options works fine.
Additionally I had to use the option "noperm" because all files wrongly showed as not readable and writable by the owner.
add a comment |
The SMB1 version of the protocol has been deprecated, however this is the default version used in older versions of mount.cifs, e.g. I have this problem with version 6.2.
You can check with:
sudo mount.cifs --version
If you try to connect to an SMB3 server using SMB1 protocol, you get the Host is down error.
The workaround, as described by many other answers here, is to specify a different version of the protocol. The following command works for me:
sudo mount -t cifs //server.name.or.ip/shares/Public /target/directory -o username=someuser,domain=somedomain,vers=3.0
However, if the server that you are connecting to uses DFS, then you will get the following error instead: mount error(38): Function not implemented. This is because DFS support on SMB3 was only added to the kernel in version 4.11.
You can check your kernel version with uname -a. In my case, it was 3.10 on CentOS7. I followed these instructions to upgrade and now it works.
add a comment |
I typically use this type of command to mount a cifs/smb share.
mount -t cifs -o rw,netbiosname=nasserver1,credentials=/etc/user_credentials.txt //192.168.1.11/someshare /mnt
the credentials file looks like so:
username=mydomainuser1
password=somepass
This can also be adapted to an automount setup so the mounting/unmounting can be handled by the system automatically via autofs.
add a comment |
In our case I checked the users login name (of user2) in the AD. There I noticed that the name was starting with an upper case letter and changed it to lower case as it is written in the mount script. Even if we did not touch neither user2 nor the mount script before, suddenly the mount command was successful.
mount --verbose -t cifs //pc/share /my-share -no user=user1,password=pw1 -o uid=user2,gid=group1,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0664
add a comment |
For me, the mounted cifs share was on a Windows server whose IP address had changed recently, so I could ping the server and resolve its new address, but the mount had not updated itself. By running a lazy unmount and then re-mounting my issue was solved:
umount -l /mnt/share
mount -a
add a comment |
I also just ran into the problem mentioned after an upgrad to Xubuntu 17.10. I use a Synology DiskStation.
What I saw there: In the DiskStation, you can choose which protocols to support. By adding he relevant protocols (up to SBM3) in the advanced options for file services in control panel, you can also solve the problem.
add a comment |
Had a similar problem. The solution for me was on the Windows share server side. Even passing the value vers=2.0 to my Linux server, the mount wasn't working. So I had to enable on my Windows server smbv1 support. This article helped me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-detect-enable-and-disable-smbv1-smbv2-and-smbv3-in-windows-and
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
add a comment |
protected by Sven♦ Mar 3 at 9:44
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
14 Answers
14
active
oldest
votes
14 Answers
14
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This could also be because of a protocol mismatch.
In 2017 Microsoft patched Windows Servers and advised to disable the SMB1 protocol.
From now on, mount.cifs might have problems with the protocol negotiation.
The error displayed is "Host is down.", but when you do debug with:
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -d 256
you will get the error:
protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_RESET
To overcome this use mount or smbclient with a protocol specified.
for smbclient: add -m SMB2 (or SMB3 for the newer version of the protocol)
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -m SMB2
or for mount: add vers=2.0 (or vers=3.0 if you want to use version 3 of the protocol)
mount -t cifs //<server_ip>/<share> /mnt/<mountpoint> -o vers=2.0
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solutionsmbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256everything works perfectly but when I trymount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiersit keeps sayingmount error(112): Host is down
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
Strange. The man page says thatvers=1.0is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passedvers=1.0.
– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0
– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
add a comment |
This could also be because of a protocol mismatch.
In 2017 Microsoft patched Windows Servers and advised to disable the SMB1 protocol.
From now on, mount.cifs might have problems with the protocol negotiation.
The error displayed is "Host is down.", but when you do debug with:
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -d 256
you will get the error:
protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_RESET
To overcome this use mount or smbclient with a protocol specified.
for smbclient: add -m SMB2 (or SMB3 for the newer version of the protocol)
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -m SMB2
or for mount: add vers=2.0 (or vers=3.0 if you want to use version 3 of the protocol)
mount -t cifs //<server_ip>/<share> /mnt/<mountpoint> -o vers=2.0
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solutionsmbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256everything works perfectly but when I trymount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiersit keeps sayingmount error(112): Host is down
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
Strange. The man page says thatvers=1.0is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passedvers=1.0.
– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0
– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
add a comment |
This could also be because of a protocol mismatch.
In 2017 Microsoft patched Windows Servers and advised to disable the SMB1 protocol.
From now on, mount.cifs might have problems with the protocol negotiation.
The error displayed is "Host is down.", but when you do debug with:
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -d 256
you will get the error:
protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_RESET
To overcome this use mount or smbclient with a protocol specified.
for smbclient: add -m SMB2 (or SMB3 for the newer version of the protocol)
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -m SMB2
or for mount: add vers=2.0 (or vers=3.0 if you want to use version 3 of the protocol)
mount -t cifs //<server_ip>/<share> /mnt/<mountpoint> -o vers=2.0
This could also be because of a protocol mismatch.
In 2017 Microsoft patched Windows Servers and advised to disable the SMB1 protocol.
From now on, mount.cifs might have problems with the protocol negotiation.
The error displayed is "Host is down.", but when you do debug with:
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -d 256
you will get the error:
protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_RESET
To overcome this use mount or smbclient with a protocol specified.
for smbclient: add -m SMB2 (or SMB3 for the newer version of the protocol)
smbclient -L <server_ip> -U <username> -m SMB2
or for mount: add vers=2.0 (or vers=3.0 if you want to use version 3 of the protocol)
mount -t cifs //<server_ip>/<share> /mnt/<mountpoint> -o vers=2.0
edited May 7 at 15:33
Ankur Gupta
1032
1032
answered Apr 5 '17 at 8:30
Marcin PMarcin P
1,05845
1,05845
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solutionsmbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256everything works perfectly but when I trymount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiersit keeps sayingmount error(112): Host is down
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
Strange. The man page says thatvers=1.0is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passedvers=1.0.
– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0
– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
add a comment |
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solutionsmbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256everything works perfectly but when I trymount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiersit keeps sayingmount error(112): Host is down
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
Strange. The man page says thatvers=1.0is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passedvers=1.0.
– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0
– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solution
smbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256 everything works perfectly but when I try mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers it keeps saying mount error(112): Host is down– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
My NAS is on Linux when I try your solution
smbclient -L 192.168.1.47 -U admin -d 256 everything works perfectly but when I try mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers it keeps saying mount error(112): Host is down– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:51
3
3
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
Have you tried to specify protocol as I explainde in this answer? Try adding vers=2.0 or vers=3.0 or vers=1.0 (depending on this NAS settings) by adding: mount -t cifs -o username=aa,password=bb,uid=olivier,vers=2.0 //192.168.1.47/partagefichiers/ /mnt/PartageFichiers
– Marcin P
Jan 13 '18 at 11:47
10
10
Strange. The man page says that
vers=1.0 is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passed vers=1.0.– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Strange. The man page says that
vers=1.0 is the default, but I couldn't get my network drive to mount before I explicitly passed vers=1.0.– Hubro
Feb 6 '18 at 5:39
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
Is it possible to change that on windows side? I have a piece of software that forwards this options to cifs and it does not know the vers option so it is not forwarded.
– Andrew Savinykh
May 1 '18 at 22:28
In fstab file it will be like that
//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
In fstab file it will be like that
//<server_ip>/<share> /media/<mountpoint> cifs username=<username>,password=<password>,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm,vers=1.0 0 0– PRIHLOP
Apr 18 at 11:52
add a comment |
On archlinux after a recent package update, I had to add vers=1.0 to my mount options. I'm connecting to an old centos 5 box and up until yesterday I could connect without explicitly stating a version number.
CIFS in linux kernel 4.13 now defaults to SMB 3.0 and in kernel 4.14 it tries 2.1 and higher. See this change log.
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
On archlinux after a recent package update, I had to add vers=1.0 to my mount options. I'm connecting to an old centos 5 box and up until yesterday I could connect without explicitly stating a version number.
CIFS in linux kernel 4.13 now defaults to SMB 3.0 and in kernel 4.14 it tries 2.1 and higher. See this change log.
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
On archlinux after a recent package update, I had to add vers=1.0 to my mount options. I'm connecting to an old centos 5 box and up until yesterday I could connect without explicitly stating a version number.
CIFS in linux kernel 4.13 now defaults to SMB 3.0 and in kernel 4.14 it tries 2.1 and higher. See this change log.
On archlinux after a recent package update, I had to add vers=1.0 to my mount options. I'm connecting to an old centos 5 box and up until yesterday I could connect without explicitly stating a version number.
CIFS in linux kernel 4.13 now defaults to SMB 3.0 and in kernel 4.14 it tries 2.1 and higher. See this change log.
edited Feb 26 at 11:21
J Smith
32
32
answered Oct 6 '17 at 7:51
Sjoerd TimmerSjoerd Timmer
51132
51132
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
Thanks, I had the same issue however I don't know which upgrade makes this necessary.
– Ben
Oct 6 '17 at 18:54
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
This is a really weird problem. Same thing happened to me today. I tried downgrading smbclient and libwbclient, but the problem persisted. Maybe something on the server changed. I think it's CentOS too, I hope not CentOS 5! Thanks for the workaround :)
– jPlatte
Oct 9 '17 at 11:27
2
2
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
I had to do this for my Fedora 26 system accessing a mount on my Synology NAS DS413j, my /etc/fstab now has ",vers=1.0" on the end of the options string and no more 'Host is down' error message.
– Neek
Nov 1 '17 at 6:41
1
1
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
I had an upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 (LTS) which broke my mounts of a Lacie NAS. This did the trick for me.
– YoungFrog
Oct 31 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
USB-stick at Fritz NAS showed "Host Down" for Ubuntu 17.10:
Defining the version (vers=1.0) worked - here's the full string:
sudo mount -t cifs -o vers=1.0,_netdev,username=<user>,password=<pwd>,uid=1000,gid=1000 //192.168.178.1/fritz.nas <local mountpoint>
2
Everything was working from within/etc/fstabcifs mount; afterapt upgradeon my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the-o vers=1.0did the trick. Thank you
– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
add a comment |
USB-stick at Fritz NAS showed "Host Down" for Ubuntu 17.10:
Defining the version (vers=1.0) worked - here's the full string:
sudo mount -t cifs -o vers=1.0,_netdev,username=<user>,password=<pwd>,uid=1000,gid=1000 //192.168.178.1/fritz.nas <local mountpoint>
2
Everything was working from within/etc/fstabcifs mount; afterapt upgradeon my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the-o vers=1.0did the trick. Thank you
– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
add a comment |
USB-stick at Fritz NAS showed "Host Down" for Ubuntu 17.10:
Defining the version (vers=1.0) worked - here's the full string:
sudo mount -t cifs -o vers=1.0,_netdev,username=<user>,password=<pwd>,uid=1000,gid=1000 //192.168.178.1/fritz.nas <local mountpoint>
USB-stick at Fritz NAS showed "Host Down" for Ubuntu 17.10:
Defining the version (vers=1.0) worked - here's the full string:
sudo mount -t cifs -o vers=1.0,_netdev,username=<user>,password=<pwd>,uid=1000,gid=1000 //192.168.178.1/fritz.nas <local mountpoint>
edited Dec 22 '17 at 19:15
Mike Fiedler
1,94311528
1,94311528
answered Dec 22 '17 at 10:16
user449376user449376
12112
12112
2
Everything was working from within/etc/fstabcifs mount; afterapt upgradeon my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the-o vers=1.0did the trick. Thank you
– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
add a comment |
2
Everything was working from within/etc/fstabcifs mount; afterapt upgradeon my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the-o vers=1.0did the trick. Thank you
– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
2
2
Everything was working from within
/etc/fstab cifs mount; after apt upgrade on my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the -o vers=1.0 did the trick. Thank you– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
Everything was working from within
/etc/fstab cifs mount; after apt upgrade on my Ubuntu 16.04 this happened. Specifying the -o vers=1.0 did the trick. Thank you– equivalent8
Jan 12 '18 at 13:02
add a comment |
Similar problem after upgrade to ubuntu 17.10, with an old Buffalo Diskstation. Solved by adding in /etc/fstab the "vers=1.0" option:
//myWDhostname/partage /media/Partage cifs guest,vers=1.0 0 0
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the,vers=1.0option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…
– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
add a comment |
Similar problem after upgrade to ubuntu 17.10, with an old Buffalo Diskstation. Solved by adding in /etc/fstab the "vers=1.0" option:
//myWDhostname/partage /media/Partage cifs guest,vers=1.0 0 0
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the,vers=1.0option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…
– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
add a comment |
Similar problem after upgrade to ubuntu 17.10, with an old Buffalo Diskstation. Solved by adding in /etc/fstab the "vers=1.0" option:
//myWDhostname/partage /media/Partage cifs guest,vers=1.0 0 0
Similar problem after upgrade to ubuntu 17.10, with an old Buffalo Diskstation. Solved by adding in /etc/fstab the "vers=1.0" option:
//myWDhostname/partage /media/Partage cifs guest,vers=1.0 0 0
edited Mar 4 '18 at 15:15
answered Mar 4 '18 at 14:12
PatricePatrice
6112
6112
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the,vers=1.0option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…
– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
add a comment |
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the,vers=1.0option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…
– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the
,vers=1.0 option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
Anybody using Ubuntu 18.04, adding the
,vers=1.0 option solves the problem when using the tutorial provided by Ji m at ubuntuhandbook.org/index.php/2014/08/…– Geppettvs D'Constanzo
May 26 '18 at 22:04
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
I have the same problem and can solve it by using version 1 in the protocoll. But I have a very low rate of transmission of data. I suspect it might be due to version 1, so using another version would be better.
– Ben
Jul 9 '18 at 18:01
add a comment |
Sorry if this is a late response (I realise it's an old thread), however I have just discovered there is another possible reason why mount.cifs would say the host is down.
I have an antivirus with a firewall and even though I set it explicitly to allow "windows file and print sharing" -- a predefined rule, it was still blocking connections. I had that proven by disabling the firewall temporarily.
Hope this helps someone, host is down might not mean it's not responding to pings, but could mean it's not responding to authentication attempts.
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to addiptablesrules to allow them:iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPTandiptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where1.2.3.4was the server's IP address.
– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
add a comment |
Sorry if this is a late response (I realise it's an old thread), however I have just discovered there is another possible reason why mount.cifs would say the host is down.
I have an antivirus with a firewall and even though I set it explicitly to allow "windows file and print sharing" -- a predefined rule, it was still blocking connections. I had that proven by disabling the firewall temporarily.
Hope this helps someone, host is down might not mean it's not responding to pings, but could mean it's not responding to authentication attempts.
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to addiptablesrules to allow them:iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPTandiptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where1.2.3.4was the server's IP address.
– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
add a comment |
Sorry if this is a late response (I realise it's an old thread), however I have just discovered there is another possible reason why mount.cifs would say the host is down.
I have an antivirus with a firewall and even though I set it explicitly to allow "windows file and print sharing" -- a predefined rule, it was still blocking connections. I had that proven by disabling the firewall temporarily.
Hope this helps someone, host is down might not mean it's not responding to pings, but could mean it's not responding to authentication attempts.
Sorry if this is a late response (I realise it's an old thread), however I have just discovered there is another possible reason why mount.cifs would say the host is down.
I have an antivirus with a firewall and even though I set it explicitly to allow "windows file and print sharing" -- a predefined rule, it was still blocking connections. I had that proven by disabling the firewall temporarily.
Hope this helps someone, host is down might not mean it's not responding to pings, but could mean it's not responding to authentication attempts.
answered Nov 28 '13 at 22:48
lolinuxlolinux
5113
5113
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to addiptablesrules to allow them:iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPTandiptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where1.2.3.4was the server's IP address.
– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
add a comment |
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to addiptablesrules to allow them:iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPTandiptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where1.2.3.4was the server's IP address.
– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to add
iptables rules to allow them: iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT and iptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where 1.2.3.4 was the server's IP address.– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
Remember to check the firewall in both sides: client and server (as well as any firewall that might there be in the way between them). In my case, it was the client's firewall that was blocking connections to the server. I had to add
iptables rules to allow them: iptables -A INPUT -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT and iptables -A OUTPUT -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT, where 1.2.3.4 was the server's IP address.– Antonio Vinicius Menezes Medei
Sep 12 '16 at 13:44
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
My NAS is on Linux so I still have this problem, but thanks for sharing
– Olivier Pons
Jan 12 '18 at 10:48
add a comment |
I received the same error without further ado from a new Samba client, when trying to mount a CIFS SMB network share:
mount error(112): Host is down
Eventually, it turned out I had previously restricted SMB server access to only a limited number of IP addresses by configuring /etc/samba/smb.conf:
# Allow these IP Addresses to connect:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 127.0.1.13 127.0.1.63
# Anything else not allowed is, by default, rejected
hosts deny = ALL
Adding the fixed IP address of the new SMB client solved the issue in this specific case.
Of course, there is a myriad of other reasons why one may receive above-mentioned error.
add a comment |
I received the same error without further ado from a new Samba client, when trying to mount a CIFS SMB network share:
mount error(112): Host is down
Eventually, it turned out I had previously restricted SMB server access to only a limited number of IP addresses by configuring /etc/samba/smb.conf:
# Allow these IP Addresses to connect:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 127.0.1.13 127.0.1.63
# Anything else not allowed is, by default, rejected
hosts deny = ALL
Adding the fixed IP address of the new SMB client solved the issue in this specific case.
Of course, there is a myriad of other reasons why one may receive above-mentioned error.
add a comment |
I received the same error without further ado from a new Samba client, when trying to mount a CIFS SMB network share:
mount error(112): Host is down
Eventually, it turned out I had previously restricted SMB server access to only a limited number of IP addresses by configuring /etc/samba/smb.conf:
# Allow these IP Addresses to connect:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 127.0.1.13 127.0.1.63
# Anything else not allowed is, by default, rejected
hosts deny = ALL
Adding the fixed IP address of the new SMB client solved the issue in this specific case.
Of course, there is a myriad of other reasons why one may receive above-mentioned error.
I received the same error without further ado from a new Samba client, when trying to mount a CIFS SMB network share:
mount error(112): Host is down
Eventually, it turned out I had previously restricted SMB server access to only a limited number of IP addresses by configuring /etc/samba/smb.conf:
# Allow these IP Addresses to connect:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 127.0.1.13 127.0.1.63
# Anything else not allowed is, by default, rejected
hosts deny = ALL
Adding the fixed IP address of the new SMB client solved the issue in this specific case.
Of course, there is a myriad of other reasons why one may receive above-mentioned error.
answered Apr 23 '15 at 21:47
Serge StroobandtSerge Stroobandt
174211
174211
add a comment |
add a comment |
Same trouble with Fritzbox 7490: mount error(112): Host is down
I didn't used -o vers=XX.
As fast as a shark i am, i first tried -o vers=2.0 and failed.
As soon as i used the option -o vers=1.0, everything works fine !
This works for me..
sudo mount -t cifs -o rw,username=myname_on_the_box,password=mypasswd_on_the_box,vers=1.0 //192.168.1.1/Fritz-nas /media/something/something
My env:
Client: Ubuntu 17.10 Linux 4.13.0-17-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Server: Fritzbox 7490 firmware 6.83.
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to usevers=1.0instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.
– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
add a comment |
Same trouble with Fritzbox 7490: mount error(112): Host is down
I didn't used -o vers=XX.
As fast as a shark i am, i first tried -o vers=2.0 and failed.
As soon as i used the option -o vers=1.0, everything works fine !
This works for me..
sudo mount -t cifs -o rw,username=myname_on_the_box,password=mypasswd_on_the_box,vers=1.0 //192.168.1.1/Fritz-nas /media/something/something
My env:
Client: Ubuntu 17.10 Linux 4.13.0-17-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Server: Fritzbox 7490 firmware 6.83.
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to usevers=1.0instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.
– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
add a comment |
Same trouble with Fritzbox 7490: mount error(112): Host is down
I didn't used -o vers=XX.
As fast as a shark i am, i first tried -o vers=2.0 and failed.
As soon as i used the option -o vers=1.0, everything works fine !
This works for me..
sudo mount -t cifs -o rw,username=myname_on_the_box,password=mypasswd_on_the_box,vers=1.0 //192.168.1.1/Fritz-nas /media/something/something
My env:
Client: Ubuntu 17.10 Linux 4.13.0-17-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Server: Fritzbox 7490 firmware 6.83.
Same trouble with Fritzbox 7490: mount error(112): Host is down
I didn't used -o vers=XX.
As fast as a shark i am, i first tried -o vers=2.0 and failed.
As soon as i used the option -o vers=1.0, everything works fine !
This works for me..
sudo mount -t cifs -o rw,username=myname_on_the_box,password=mypasswd_on_the_box,vers=1.0 //192.168.1.1/Fritz-nas /media/something/something
My env:
Client: Ubuntu 17.10 Linux 4.13.0-17-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Server: Fritzbox 7490 firmware 6.83.
answered Nov 30 '17 at 11:53
d.dieckertd.dieckert
211
211
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to usevers=1.0instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.
– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
add a comment |
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to usevers=1.0instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.
– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to use
vers=1.0 instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
AVM uses an outdated version of Samba that they maintain themselves. That probably explains why one has to use
vers=1.0 instead of the more appropriate newer protocol versions.– 0xC0000022L
Jul 30 '18 at 21:09
add a comment |
Same trouble connecting to Synology DiskStation (DSM 4.3).
Using vers=1.0 in the mount options works fine.
Additionally I had to use the option "noperm" because all files wrongly showed as not readable and writable by the owner.
add a comment |
Same trouble connecting to Synology DiskStation (DSM 4.3).
Using vers=1.0 in the mount options works fine.
Additionally I had to use the option "noperm" because all files wrongly showed as not readable and writable by the owner.
add a comment |
Same trouble connecting to Synology DiskStation (DSM 4.3).
Using vers=1.0 in the mount options works fine.
Additionally I had to use the option "noperm" because all files wrongly showed as not readable and writable by the owner.
Same trouble connecting to Synology DiskStation (DSM 4.3).
Using vers=1.0 in the mount options works fine.
Additionally I had to use the option "noperm" because all files wrongly showed as not readable and writable by the owner.
answered Dec 5 '17 at 10:58
BernhardBernhard
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
The SMB1 version of the protocol has been deprecated, however this is the default version used in older versions of mount.cifs, e.g. I have this problem with version 6.2.
You can check with:
sudo mount.cifs --version
If you try to connect to an SMB3 server using SMB1 protocol, you get the Host is down error.
The workaround, as described by many other answers here, is to specify a different version of the protocol. The following command works for me:
sudo mount -t cifs //server.name.or.ip/shares/Public /target/directory -o username=someuser,domain=somedomain,vers=3.0
However, if the server that you are connecting to uses DFS, then you will get the following error instead: mount error(38): Function not implemented. This is because DFS support on SMB3 was only added to the kernel in version 4.11.
You can check your kernel version with uname -a. In my case, it was 3.10 on CentOS7. I followed these instructions to upgrade and now it works.
add a comment |
The SMB1 version of the protocol has been deprecated, however this is the default version used in older versions of mount.cifs, e.g. I have this problem with version 6.2.
You can check with:
sudo mount.cifs --version
If you try to connect to an SMB3 server using SMB1 protocol, you get the Host is down error.
The workaround, as described by many other answers here, is to specify a different version of the protocol. The following command works for me:
sudo mount -t cifs //server.name.or.ip/shares/Public /target/directory -o username=someuser,domain=somedomain,vers=3.0
However, if the server that you are connecting to uses DFS, then you will get the following error instead: mount error(38): Function not implemented. This is because DFS support on SMB3 was only added to the kernel in version 4.11.
You can check your kernel version with uname -a. In my case, it was 3.10 on CentOS7. I followed these instructions to upgrade and now it works.
add a comment |
The SMB1 version of the protocol has been deprecated, however this is the default version used in older versions of mount.cifs, e.g. I have this problem with version 6.2.
You can check with:
sudo mount.cifs --version
If you try to connect to an SMB3 server using SMB1 protocol, you get the Host is down error.
The workaround, as described by many other answers here, is to specify a different version of the protocol. The following command works for me:
sudo mount -t cifs //server.name.or.ip/shares/Public /target/directory -o username=someuser,domain=somedomain,vers=3.0
However, if the server that you are connecting to uses DFS, then you will get the following error instead: mount error(38): Function not implemented. This is because DFS support on SMB3 was only added to the kernel in version 4.11.
You can check your kernel version with uname -a. In my case, it was 3.10 on CentOS7. I followed these instructions to upgrade and now it works.
The SMB1 version of the protocol has been deprecated, however this is the default version used in older versions of mount.cifs, e.g. I have this problem with version 6.2.
You can check with:
sudo mount.cifs --version
If you try to connect to an SMB3 server using SMB1 protocol, you get the Host is down error.
The workaround, as described by many other answers here, is to specify a different version of the protocol. The following command works for me:
sudo mount -t cifs //server.name.or.ip/shares/Public /target/directory -o username=someuser,domain=somedomain,vers=3.0
However, if the server that you are connecting to uses DFS, then you will get the following error instead: mount error(38): Function not implemented. This is because DFS support on SMB3 was only added to the kernel in version 4.11.
You can check your kernel version with uname -a. In my case, it was 3.10 on CentOS7. I followed these instructions to upgrade and now it works.
answered Sep 4 '18 at 8:43
Dr John A StevensonDr John A Stevenson
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
I typically use this type of command to mount a cifs/smb share.
mount -t cifs -o rw,netbiosname=nasserver1,credentials=/etc/user_credentials.txt //192.168.1.11/someshare /mnt
the credentials file looks like so:
username=mydomainuser1
password=somepass
This can also be adapted to an automount setup so the mounting/unmounting can be handled by the system automatically via autofs.
add a comment |
I typically use this type of command to mount a cifs/smb share.
mount -t cifs -o rw,netbiosname=nasserver1,credentials=/etc/user_credentials.txt //192.168.1.11/someshare /mnt
the credentials file looks like so:
username=mydomainuser1
password=somepass
This can also be adapted to an automount setup so the mounting/unmounting can be handled by the system automatically via autofs.
add a comment |
I typically use this type of command to mount a cifs/smb share.
mount -t cifs -o rw,netbiosname=nasserver1,credentials=/etc/user_credentials.txt //192.168.1.11/someshare /mnt
the credentials file looks like so:
username=mydomainuser1
password=somepass
This can also be adapted to an automount setup so the mounting/unmounting can be handled by the system automatically via autofs.
I typically use this type of command to mount a cifs/smb share.
mount -t cifs -o rw,netbiosname=nasserver1,credentials=/etc/user_credentials.txt //192.168.1.11/someshare /mnt
the credentials file looks like so:
username=mydomainuser1
password=somepass
This can also be adapted to an automount setup so the mounting/unmounting can be handled by the system automatically via autofs.
answered Nov 4 '12 at 7:23
slmslm
5,136124460
5,136124460
add a comment |
add a comment |
In our case I checked the users login name (of user2) in the AD. There I noticed that the name was starting with an upper case letter and changed it to lower case as it is written in the mount script. Even if we did not touch neither user2 nor the mount script before, suddenly the mount command was successful.
mount --verbose -t cifs //pc/share /my-share -no user=user1,password=pw1 -o uid=user2,gid=group1,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0664
add a comment |
In our case I checked the users login name (of user2) in the AD. There I noticed that the name was starting with an upper case letter and changed it to lower case as it is written in the mount script. Even if we did not touch neither user2 nor the mount script before, suddenly the mount command was successful.
mount --verbose -t cifs //pc/share /my-share -no user=user1,password=pw1 -o uid=user2,gid=group1,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0664
add a comment |
In our case I checked the users login name (of user2) in the AD. There I noticed that the name was starting with an upper case letter and changed it to lower case as it is written in the mount script. Even if we did not touch neither user2 nor the mount script before, suddenly the mount command was successful.
mount --verbose -t cifs //pc/share /my-share -no user=user1,password=pw1 -o uid=user2,gid=group1,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0664
In our case I checked the users login name (of user2) in the AD. There I noticed that the name was starting with an upper case letter and changed it to lower case as it is written in the mount script. Even if we did not touch neither user2 nor the mount script before, suddenly the mount command was successful.
mount --verbose -t cifs //pc/share /my-share -no user=user1,password=pw1 -o uid=user2,gid=group1,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0664
answered Jun 29 '17 at 11:28
LudwigLudwig
1614
1614
add a comment |
add a comment |
For me, the mounted cifs share was on a Windows server whose IP address had changed recently, so I could ping the server and resolve its new address, but the mount had not updated itself. By running a lazy unmount and then re-mounting my issue was solved:
umount -l /mnt/share
mount -a
add a comment |
For me, the mounted cifs share was on a Windows server whose IP address had changed recently, so I could ping the server and resolve its new address, but the mount had not updated itself. By running a lazy unmount and then re-mounting my issue was solved:
umount -l /mnt/share
mount -a
add a comment |
For me, the mounted cifs share was on a Windows server whose IP address had changed recently, so I could ping the server and resolve its new address, but the mount had not updated itself. By running a lazy unmount and then re-mounting my issue was solved:
umount -l /mnt/share
mount -a
For me, the mounted cifs share was on a Windows server whose IP address had changed recently, so I could ping the server and resolve its new address, but the mount had not updated itself. By running a lazy unmount and then re-mounting my issue was solved:
umount -l /mnt/share
mount -a
answered Nov 28 '17 at 16:06
Jon.MozleyJon.Mozley
487
487
add a comment |
add a comment |
I also just ran into the problem mentioned after an upgrad to Xubuntu 17.10. I use a Synology DiskStation.
What I saw there: In the DiskStation, you can choose which protocols to support. By adding he relevant protocols (up to SBM3) in the advanced options for file services in control panel, you can also solve the problem.
add a comment |
I also just ran into the problem mentioned after an upgrad to Xubuntu 17.10. I use a Synology DiskStation.
What I saw there: In the DiskStation, you can choose which protocols to support. By adding he relevant protocols (up to SBM3) in the advanced options for file services in control panel, you can also solve the problem.
add a comment |
I also just ran into the problem mentioned after an upgrad to Xubuntu 17.10. I use a Synology DiskStation.
What I saw there: In the DiskStation, you can choose which protocols to support. By adding he relevant protocols (up to SBM3) in the advanced options for file services in control panel, you can also solve the problem.
I also just ran into the problem mentioned after an upgrad to Xubuntu 17.10. I use a Synology DiskStation.
What I saw there: In the DiskStation, you can choose which protocols to support. By adding he relevant protocols (up to SBM3) in the advanced options for file services in control panel, you can also solve the problem.
answered Feb 4 '18 at 3:09
Matthias MielkeMatthias Mielke
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Had a similar problem. The solution for me was on the Windows share server side. Even passing the value vers=2.0 to my Linux server, the mount wasn't working. So I had to enable on my Windows server smbv1 support. This article helped me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-detect-enable-and-disable-smbv1-smbv2-and-smbv3-in-windows-and
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
add a comment |
Had a similar problem. The solution for me was on the Windows share server side. Even passing the value vers=2.0 to my Linux server, the mount wasn't working. So I had to enable on my Windows server smbv1 support. This article helped me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-detect-enable-and-disable-smbv1-smbv2-and-smbv3-in-windows-and
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
add a comment |
Had a similar problem. The solution for me was on the Windows share server side. Even passing the value vers=2.0 to my Linux server, the mount wasn't working. So I had to enable on my Windows server smbv1 support. This article helped me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-detect-enable-and-disable-smbv1-smbv2-and-smbv3-in-windows-and
Had a similar problem. The solution for me was on the Windows share server side. Even passing the value vers=2.0 to my Linux server, the mount wasn't working. So I had to enable on my Windows server smbv1 support. This article helped me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-detect-enable-and-disable-smbv1-smbv2-and-smbv3-in-windows-and
answered Feb 2 '18 at 1:42
Vinicius FreitasVinicius Freitas
1
1
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
add a comment |
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
4
4
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
Don't do this. smbv1 is the vector that WannaCry uses to spread and is being phased out everywhere.
– Andrew Schulman
Feb 2 '18 at 2:08
add a comment |
protected by Sven♦ Mar 3 at 9:44
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
do a nslookup nas.domain.local does it equal the ip you pinged?
– tony roth
Aug 3 '12 at 17:19
Yes, the IP returned is accurate. I can access the web interface of the NAS using the IP and domain as well. I can access the data on my laptop using either the domain or IP so it seems there is some other issue at play here
– Kevin
Aug 3 '12 at 17:28
6
Add the
--verboseswitch to your mount command, post any errors/results that seem relevant.– Zoredache
Aug 3 '12 at 17:55
Is the service even running on the remote server. It is a Linux or Windows Server? If it is Linux... verify that the service is running. Make sure no changes have been done to the firewall... If it is windows... then you might consider a reboot...
– Jay
Aug 6 '12 at 22:06
1
@Zoredache Add
-vvvfor even more verbose information!– Serge Stroobandt
Apr 23 '15 at 17:36