SMB share on TrueNAS scale (Solved, but trying to find the reason why my changes fixed the problem)

Hi, I got one of my two IBM X3550 M3 servers equipped with TrueNAS Scale yesterday.
Here are the specs
IBM system X3550 M3
Dual xeon E5506 4c/4t
40 GiB of DDR3 ECC RAM
Assortment of disks:
0:A400 SSD 240GiB, used independatly for VM pool
1: IBM 10K 146GiB SAS HDD, used for TrueNAS install drive
2. 1TB WD AV HDD
3. 1TN WD AV HDD
The reason that I am using those AV HDD is that those came with these servers, and work, and I know, not the best performance. And might die in a couple of years anyway.
Both of the integrated NICs are connected to LAN, system equipped only with the dual 1Gb NICs.

After that, I have tried to set up the SMB share, running on a mirrored pool of two WD 1TB HDDs
I looked through this tutorial ((link), and followed the steps there until 7min 04s.
Here’s the problem though happens, after I give the correct username and password. The windows 10 resource manager/file explorer wants to use certificate, and opens a couple of options
However, none of these actually work, so then it provides error message with text that does not say what is actually the issue.

Allright, so let me rephrase what I want

  1. I would like to access the SMB share over LAN
  2. This requires, that my desktop (running W10P) can access the SMB share, and also my laptop (Probook 455G7 W10P as well), to move some files to the server.

I see two options
1.Get the certificate mandate lifted from windows 10 side, which I would prefer.
Or 2. Get the sertificate putted into the SMB share
Any ideas are welcome!
Thank you

I can’t get to the video, but are you using the ACL Manager on the dataset? Can you post some screenshots of your setup?

1 Like

Funny enough I did this yesterday, I don’t have time to completely write but I did find ACL to be a hassle and went with usual permissions in the end.


Here you go




Hope that is enough to a start

Hmm, that was what I tried to do, but seems not to work
Oh, well, if you have more time, check how far I got with @FunnyPossum , and comment from there

Update
Problem was solved by allowing
-NETBIOS-NS
-Outbound network (Allow mail, update, vmware)
Should these changes actually made the problem go away?
Trying to figure out what was the originial issue

Any reason for the two ip addresses shown on the last image?

Also, are you using the W10 username / pass? So far I’ve just created the user name/pass on the TrueNAS, then use explorer at the top and type \TrueNAS-IP-Address. It prompts for username / pass, then I’m in.

Those two are the IP addresses for the dual integrateg NICs
I thought, that I might as well enable these, since I know the IPs

Looking at the description, these actually could be somewhat reason, since with those, it is speciefied, which IPs it listens

Ah, you sorted it! There is a method to make the network simpler, requires reg edit.

I am not

Ah, I see - I think it’s best to setup LAG if you want to do that, just have one as a fail over, but keep a primary IP. That screws with things if you try to connect both (it does with Core anyway).

Just for starting though, I would only have one connected if I were you - play with LAG later, but don’t expect to bind them into one connection - again, it doesn’t quite work with Core.

Good, I think it’s best.

What is LAGin this context?
I understood the explination about the primary and backup IP (I did the CCNA ITN, afterall)

Allrigh, apart from that, you are honestly awesome!

Stolen from t’internet: Link aggregation (LAG) is used to describe various methods for using multiple parallel network connections to increase throughput beyond the limit that one link (one connection) can achieve . For link aggregation, physical ports must reside on a single switch.

Sounds like you’re book smart for sure!

Ah, that’s nice, glad if I help! :+1:

1 Like

And consider merging the pools into one. You’ll save yourself a lot of headache and work without managing two seperate pools. And everything will be checksummed and redundant too. I wouldn’t worry about performance with 40GB of memory and 240GB potential cache, will probably be faster than it is now.

2 Likes

Hmm, I will consider, after I get gigabit swithc, since Currently, LAN, where the Desktop and server are is 100mb/s full duplex
And I would say that is the bigger bottleneck, apart from the fact that I cannot add drives, since all 4 driveslots are in use…

I ll try that, once I have time