ProxMox CIFS Share error “failed: error with cfs lock ‘file-storage_cfg'”

You may have encountered the following error message when trying to mount a CIFS share from the web interface of your Proxmox server. If you run the following command below via SSH, you will get a little more detail.

❯ pvesm add cifs pooter-linux-isos --server 192.168.2.9 --share linux-isos --username proxmox --password
Enter Password: *********
mount error(95): Operation not supported
create storage failed: error with cfs lock 'file-storage_cfg': mount error: Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs)

The issue is solved by running the command with –smbversion 2.0 or 2.1 or 3.0 as per this forum topic. For my Synology it was –smbversion 2.0 that worked.

https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/cifs-issue-error-with-cfs-lock-file-storage_cfg-working-now-but-shows-question-mark.45962/

0 Shares:
You May Also Like

Bug Clean up for QuickPwn

Not too long after releasing and updated PwnageTool and Quickpwn, the iphone-dev.org team has released an update to QuickPwn.
We’ve had some issues with iPod touch devices and the latest version of PwnageTool for the Mac, in certain conditions incorrect permissions will be used and the keychain doesn’t save passwords. So hold on and wait for the next release, we’ll push out the updated version via Sparkle as soon as it is tested (it is being tested right now).

AMD 64 2000+ vs Intel’s Atom: AMD’s 8-watt processor outperforms Intels Atom

Intel's Atom processor and AMD's 64 2000+ were pitted against each other. And the results were for once in favor of AMD.
In our Munich lab’s duel of the energy-savers, the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ beats the Intel Atom 230 in energy consumption and processing power. Each of the systems was based on a desktop platform. The Achilles heel of the Intel system is its old system platform with the 945GC chipset, while AMD offers a more modern 780G platform. The energy-saving solution from AMD offers more possibilities: it has three times as many SATA ports, possesses better onboard graphics performance, and can also support two monitors. Unlike the Intel solution, an HD resolution (1920x1200) with high picture quality is possible through DVI/HDMI ports. And early information suggests that the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ should cost close to $90.
Read the full article at tomshardware.com