it is said copy speed is better than Smaba 3, somebody runs same platform on ArchLinux.
Topic: Anyone has successed build Samba 4 on Openwrt?
The content of this topic has been archived on 1 Apr 2018. There are no obvious gaps in this topic, but there may still be some posts missing at the end.
Samba4 has:
- different build system
- different codebase
There are no embedded patches available from any projects or in upstream project.
Because of that samba4 get quite big (not viable for 4M/8M routers) and will probably not adopted anytime soon.
ofc. there are other embedded projects which have it available - buildroot
Thank you Zloop.
one blog descript here:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/arch … using.aspx
it is said in a pogoplug video vesion 3 wth openwrt installed use samba4 from archlinux, windows 8(Using SAMBA 3.0 API) PC can read at 40-50 M/s and write speed at 30M/s. but my current SMB 3.6 with a NTFS disk on Pogoplug Video Version 3, its write speed is only 10M/s(I connect via a low grade router) and I am using Win7 (using samba 2.1 API).
There are several different versions of SMB used by Windows operating systems:
•CIFS – The ancient version of SMB that was part of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 in 1996. SMB1 supersedes this version.
•SMB 1.0 (or SMB1) – The version used in Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2
•SMB 2.0 (or SMB2) – The version used in Windows Vista (SP1 or later) and Windows Server 2008
•SMB 2.1 (or SMB2.1) – The version used in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2
•SMB 3.0 (or SMB3) – The version used in Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012
•SMB 3.02 (or SMB3) – The version used in Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2
Sample Copy pictures at here:
(Last edited by maplewang on 9 Dec 2014, 19:24)
one version of Samba4:
Here are two other projects about this...
https://github.com/maz-1/openwrt-maz1/t … ter/samba4
https://github.com/wongsyrone/openwrt-1 … e/external
The latter seems to be more promising but help is needed
(Last edited by diizzy on 9 Feb 2016, 02:57)
The discussion might have continued from here.