On Sat 12 Jul 2025 at 02:51:25 (+), David wrote:
> Again: when you mount something on a mountpoint, all underlying data of
> that mountpoint becomes hidden and inaccessible and irrelevant.
In linux, that isn't entirely true, as you can use a bind mount
to read what lies "
On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 02:51:25AM +, David wrote:
In fact it has been my practice for some years now to 'chown root:' and
'chmod 0' on all my mountpoints and set the immutable bit on them, to avoid
accidentally writing into directories that are intended only as
mountpoints.
And I have never
David wrote:
> Something that I am curious to learn more about, if anyone has ideas, is
> the discussion at the above link about the need to have at least 'chmod
> 111' on mountpoint directories.
>
> I have not found that necessary, and so I wonder if that advice is
> outdated, or somehow not rel
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 18:49, Hans wrote:
> > Permissions are stored for the root directory of each filesystem, which
> > are used as the permissions of the mount point when the drive is
> > mounted.
> Thanks, this is explaining all my questions. I always thought wrong, t
> Permissions are stored for the root directory of each filesystem, which
> are used as the permissions of the mount point when the drive is
> mounted.
Thanks, this is explaining all my questions. I always thought wrong, that
mounted devices and folders on it, get the ownership from t
Hans wrote:
> > You have to chown/chmod the mount point *after* the drive is mounted. If
> > you do it before the drive is mounted it won't have any effect on the
> > mounted drive. (As you can see.) I really am not sure what else to say,
> > this is how it wor
filesystem, which
are used as the permissions of the mount point when the drive is
mounted.
On 7/11/25 20:02, Hans wrote:
Where are the permission be set at the drive? It is just a hardware without
any folders or files on. Freshly formatted. What can be done wrong at this?
Nothing is wrong. After a fresh format (mke2fs) the root directory
belongs to root:root, and that is what you se
> You have to chown/chmod the mount point *after* the drive is mounted. If
> you do it before the drive is mounted it won't have any effect on the
> mounted drive. (As you can see.) I really am not sure what else to say,
> this is how it works.
Ok, I did as adviced. Change
Nothing is really "wrong", you simply haven't set permissions on the new
filesystem yet.
Fix should be as easy as these three commands:
1. (sudo) mount /dev/sde1 /daten2
2. (sudo) chown root:backup /daten2
3. (sudo) chmod 770 /daten2
(skip mounting if it's already mounte
d is the proper procedure, set the permissions after
the drive is mounted.
I do NOT want to remount it manually at every boot.
That has nothing to do with the permissions.
A mount point is just a directory that has its own permissions, then you
mount something on it and it has the permissions
e you are probably confused and did something different with the
> one that is different.
>
Yes, agreed, but WHAT?
> A mount point is just a directory that has its own permissions, then you
> mount something on it and it has the permissions of whatever you
> mounted. So there are tw
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 07:29:15PM +0200, Hans wrote:
This is not, what I wanted. The questions are:
1. Why does this happen only with one of the 3 drives?
You probably set the permissions on the other two drives after they were
mounted.
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 07:29:15PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> > The ownership of the underlying mount point is ignored (and should
> > generally be set to root:root mode 755 to avoid possible complications
> > in odd cases). You need to chown the directory *after* it is mounted
> The ownership of the underlying mount point is ignored (and should
> generally be set to root:root mode 755 to avoid possible complications
> in odd cases). You need to chown the directory *after* it is mounted.
This is not, what I wanted. The questions are:
1. Why does this happen
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 07:06:19PM +0200, Hans wrote:
So all are the same, and the mountpoints shall all have
ownership user:group = root:backup
However, the latest harddrive I added, wbhich is sde1 shows wrong ownerhips,
The ownership of the underlying mount point is ignored (and should
Dear list,
I am struggeling with a strange behavior when automounting my inbuilt
harddrives.
I have 3 harddrives, which are mounted to
/space (sdc1) ext4
/daten1 (sdd1) ext4
/daten2 (sde1) ext4
So all are the same, and the mountpoints shall all have
ownership user:group = r
Dan Ritter wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
> > I have an SD card which is vfat formatted. There's a file on it that
> > I want to remove but when automounted it is read only. How can I get
> > it to mount with write permission?
> >
> > This is on debian 12.
&
On 10/06/25 at 18:11, Chris Green wrote:
I have an SD card which is vfat formatted. There's a file on it that
I want to remove but when automounted it is read only. How can I get
it to mount with write permission?
This is on debian 12.
Probably is already mounted read/write but you ha
Chris Green wrote:
> I have an SD card which is vfat formatted. There's a file on it that
> I want to remove but when automounted it is read only. How can I get
> it to mount with write permission?
>
> This is on debian 12.
First, check to see if the SD card has a reado
I have an SD card which is vfat formatted. There's a file on it that
I want to remove but when automounted it is read only. How can I get
it to mount with write permission?
This is on debian 12.
--
Chris Green
·
used for a secondary
process to access the mount namespace of another, but only for the
private /tmp created by PrivateTmp= , and not any other mounts.
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net
On Wed May 21, 2025 at 10:05 AM BST, Nicolas George wrote:
Does it mean you like your backup drive to be permanently plugged to
the computer? That protects you from hardware failures and human
mistakes, but not from large physical damage or theft.
This drive is permanently connected to this co
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:38:38AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de (HE12025-05-21):
> > Actually, this makes a lot of sense (well, nearly): keep backup constantly
> > synced, unmount/mount only on media rotation, carry freshly unmounted
> > medium to saf
to...@tuxteam.de (HE12025-05-21):
> Actually, this makes a lot of sense (well, nearly): keep backup constantly
> synced, unmount/mount only on media rotation, carry freshly unmounted
> medium to safe place.
It only becomes an effective backup at the time it is unmounted to move
the medi
puter? That protects you from hardware failures and human mistakes,
> but not from large physical damage or theft.
Actually, this makes a lot of sense (well, nearly): keep backup constantly
synced, unmount/mount only on media rotation, carry freshly unmounted
medium to safe place.
Cheers
--
t
Jonathan Dowland (HE12025-05-21):
> I'd like /backup permanently
> mounted
Does it mean you like your backup drive to be permanently plugged to the
computer? That protects you from hardware failures and human mistakes,
but not from large physical damage or
On May 21, 2025, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue May 20, 2025 at 3:50 PM BST, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > I used /mnt/backup because I only wanted the partition mounted while the
> > backup was running (it was one of several on that physical drive). The
> > backup script did the m
On Tue May 20, 2025 at 3:50 PM BST, Dan Purgert wrote:
I used /mnt/backup because I only wanted the partition mounted while
the backup was running (it was one of several on that physical drive).
The backup script did the mount/rsync/unmount as part of the
execution. Really, the only point of
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:35:14AM -0400, Lee wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:08 AM tomas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:45:11AM -0400, Lee wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:33 AM wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > What do you do if you get two USBs containing file systems with
>
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:08 AM tomas wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:45:11AM -0400, Lee wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:33 AM wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > What do you do if you get two USBs containing file systems with
> > > the same UUID?
> >
> > Is that possible? I suppose it is.. so I'
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:50:50AM -0400, Dan Purgert wrote:
[...]
> I used /mnt/backup because I only wanted the partition mounted while the
> backup was running (it was one of several on that physical drive). The
> backup script did the mount/rsync/unmount as part of the execution.
> >
> > test -f /mnt/usb-drive-b/.some-file
> >
> > where '.some-file' exists on the device but not on the empty mount
> > point.
>
> If we're continuing this thread, why would one want to use
> /mnt/usb-drive-b for mounting a usb driv
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:45:11AM -0400, Lee wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:33 AM wrote:
[...]
> > What do you do if you get two USBs containing file systems with
> > the same UUID?
>
> Is that possible? I suppose it is.. so I'd go looking for how to
> change the UUID for one of the usb dr
one criterion I would use for choosing)
> > >
> > > The approach I would have used (and it's not infallible) is
> > >
> > > test -f /mnt/usb-drive-b/.some-file
> > >
> > > where '.some-file' exists on the device but not on t
t's not infallible) is
> >
> > test -f /mnt/usb-drive-b/.some-file
> >
> > where '.some-file' exists on the device but not on the empty mount
> > point.
>
> If we're continuing this thread, why would one want to use
> /mnt/usb-drive-b f
> both part of util-linux, so I guess as likely as each other to be
> available (which is one criterion I would use for choosing)
>
> The approach I would have used (and it's not infallible) is
>
> test -f /mnt/usb-drive-b/.some-file
>
> where '.som
on I would use for choosing)
The approach I would have used (and it's not infallible) is
test -f /mnt/usb-drive-b/.some-file
where '.some-file' exists on the device but not on the empty mount
point.
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@
ll you need do is put
> something like:
>
> if ! findmnt /mnt/usb-drive-b; then
> echo "Mount USB drive B before running this!" >&2
> exit 1
> fi
why not
if ! mountpoint /mnt/usb-drive-b ; then ...
?
KJ
--
http://wolnelektury.pl/wesprzyj/teraz/
EMACS = Even a Master of Arts Comes Simpler
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 3:22 PM Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> On May 19, 2025, Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 8:03 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 19:51:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> >
On May 19, 2025, Lee wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 8:03 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 19:51:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> >
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 8:03 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 19:51:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> > > > Since I know almost no shell scripting,
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 19:51:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> > > Since I know almost no shell scripting, the rsync usb drive A
> > > to usb drive B copy is done with a simpl
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> > Since I know almost no shell scripting, the rsync usb drive A
> > to usb drive B copy is done with a simple bash script consisting
> > only of the rsync backup command, wi
Thanks, Andy!
I'll give it a try.
de to verify that usb drive B is attached.
>
> I really should learn more shell scripting. That is something
> else I will get to "Real Soon Now".
> :)
If your backup script is a bash script then all you need do is put
something like:
if ! findmnt /mnt/usb-drive-b; then
Hi,
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025, Haines Brown wrote:
> > I try as you sugggest abd run within chroot. But this is what
> > I get:?
> >
> > /# mount -o bind /sys/ /mnt/debinst/sys
> > mount: /mnt/debinst/sys: mount point does not exist.
> >d
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025, Haines Brown wrote:
I try as you sugggest abd run within chroot. But this is what
I get:?
/# mount -o bind /sys/ /mnt/debinst/sys
mount: /mnt/debinst/sys: mount point does not exist.
dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 06:23:05AM -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> the UUIDs are copied and pasted from # blkid and so should be without
> error.
Can you show us the output of blkid?
> I did the chroot command again (while in chroot) nd it reported an error:
chroot from inside a chroot is ob
festab on the target. I use the UUIDs
> > repored by # blkid for
> > the target disk,
> >
> > Then I attemt to mount these partitions
> >
> > /:# mount -a
> >
> > Mount cann't find the UIIDs. For eample:
> >
> > mount:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025, Haines Brown wrote:
I am doing a cross install from my current Debian daedalus systm to a target
disk /dev/nvme1n1.
I enter chroot, and create /etc/festab on the target. I use the UUIDs repored
by # blkid for
the target disk,
Then I attemt to mount these partitions
disk,
>
> Then I attemt to mount these partitions
>
> /:# mount -a
>
> Mount cann't find the UIIDs. For eample:
>
> mount: /tmp: can't find UUID="0753d3bf-15eb-40a3-bdbd-bea054fc4f60".
>
> What am I doint wrong?
Have you considered using
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 15:38:45 -0400
Haines Brown wrote:
> I enter chroot, and create /etc/festab on the target. I use the UUIDs
> repored by # blkid for the target disk,
>
> Then I attemt to mount these partitions
>
> /:# mount -a
>
> Mount cann'
I am doing a cross install from my current Debian daedalus systm to a target
disk /dev/nvme1n1.
I enter chroot, and create /etc/festab on the target. I use the UUIDs repored
by # blkid for
the target disk,
Then I attemt to mount these partitions
/:# mount -a
Mount cann't fin
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 13:18:53 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Urs Thuermann writes:
> > mount | fgrep -vf <(awk '/^nodev/{print $2}' /proc/filesystems)
>
> Thanks. It has the benefit of not showing autofs, for example. But how
> to quote that for an alias?
The
Urs Thuermann writes:
> Felix Miata writes:
>
>> I have the following in ~/.bashrc for making that easier:
>>
>> alias Mnt='mount | egrep -v "cgroup|rpc|ramfs|tmpfs|^sys|on /dev|on /proc|on
>> /sys|on /var" | sort '
>
> mount | fgrep -
Felix Miata writes:
> I have the following in ~/.bashrc for making that easier:
>
> alias Mnt='mount | egrep -v "cgroup|rpc|ramfs|tmpfs|^sys|on /dev|on /proc|on
> /sys|on /var" | sort '
mount | fgrep -vf <(awk '/^nodev/{print $2}' /proc/filesystems)
urs
Greg Wooledge composed on 2025-01-14 07:30 (UTC-0500):
> Finally, please show the mount options of whatever file system is
> full. This means grepping something out of the output of "mount".
> It can be difficult to get the right line sometimes.
I have the following in ~
On 23 Jul 2024 14:49 -0300, from edua...@kalinowski.com.br (Eduardo M
KALINOWSKI):
> As described on the sshfs manpage, by default only the mounting user (root,
> in your case) can access the filesystem.
>
> You can use -o allow_other to allow other users. Or, if it's only eben
> that'll be acces
On 23/07/2024 14:40, Eben King wrote:
And after I issue this command:
root@cerberus:~# sshfs -o default_permissions
sshd@white_mycloud:/mnt/HD/HD_a2/Public /mnt/white_mycloud/
sshd@white_mycloud's password:
By the prompt (and the behavior below) I assume you're mounting as root.
it looks like
I have an older WD Mycloud Connect NAS. I'm currently trying to mount it
via sshfs (I prefer NFS, but can't make it work either). When it's not
mounted, /mnt looks like this to me:
eben@cerberus:~$ \ls -l /mnt
total 16
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Mar 11 23:39 server
drwxr-xr-x 2
sandboxing. You can obtain command line
arguments. Attach to its mount namespace and inspect content of its
/proc//mounts or mountinfo. The next step would be to profile or at
least to trace a process.
I'm not sure i understand you there.
It was intended to express my surprise that "find&qu
lucky for 15 years and we should change
> the way we do things or is it a bug ? I will now take this to the
> kernel team and see what they have to say about it.
I take it you have read
https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/sharedsubtree.html which says "A
shared mount can be replicated
> This can be solved with ACLs. Instead of creating a bind mount, this process
> that allows the user to share the directory can set an ACL and create a
> symlink.
For a few users maybe but not that easy when you have many thousands
users (that on top do not have local accounts). We&#
bug ? I will now take this to the
kernel team and see what they have to say about it.
> Especially if you keep insisting on using a way that was never officially
> supported, just because you got away with it for 15 years.
That's the very question i guess! How much mount is too much mount ;)
Thanks again for your help.
> At this point, I kinda doubt this issue has anything to do with Debian
> itself, but will most likely be an issue/limitation of the Linux Kernel
> itself.
>From my latest tests, it seems to point that way. Kernel 5.4 came with
a new mount API and it seems to break since then.
Duri
PS: if you maintain your own software and aren't able to find a way for
your user to do shares - especially while systems that most likely have
such functionality built-in out of the box surely exist, think Nextcloud
etc - that is covered by how Linux is supposed to be used, by definition
it's pret
Software is only tested to a certain degree. So mounts are tested to a
sensible number, if you move outside it, you have to bet on luck if it's
supported or not. At this point, I kinda doubt this issue has anything to
do with Debian itself, but will most likely be an issue/limitation of the
Linux K
it read/write to one user but read only to another
This can be solved with ACLs. Instead of creating a bind mount, this
process that allows the user to share the directory can set an ACL and
create a symlink.
PS: It would be better if you used a mailer that correctly sets mail
headers Refere
> For this, probably the easiest is to set up a common directory/a few common
> directories, set up proper permissions through use of groups and worst case
> create some symlinks from the user's home directories, if these directories
> really need to be accessible from within their home director
> Does it really have to be in the home directory? Can't the software (and/or
> the users) open files in, say, /shared/accounting?
It doesn't really matter where folders/mounts are. Users can share any
directory (and subdirectories) in their home directory with any other
user. The shared folder i
>> However do you need shared subtrees?
> I'm gonna test the effect of setting them to private.
This doesn't seem to fix the problem either
For this, probably the easiest is to set up a common directory/a few common
directories, set up proper permissions through use of groups and worst case
create some symlinks from the user's home directories, if these directories
really need to be accessible from within their home directories. That's
On 19/06/2024 05:46, Julien Petit wrote:
Rights are not the challenge here. It's to be able to share a
directory across multiple users.
For instance you would have : /users/bob/accounting shared with Alice
and accessible in her home directory /users/alice/accounting
Does it really have to be in
command line arguments.
> Attach to its mount namespace and inspect content of its /proc//mounts
> or mountinfo. The next step would be to profile or at least to trace a
> process.
I'm not sure i understand you there.
> I have not figured out from your description what proble
> Just to learn about it.
> What about using acl rather than bind mounts? What should be the
> problem in this solution?
As i said to Richard, rights are not the challenge here. It's to be
able to share a directory across multiple users. For instance you
would have : /users/bob/accounting shared w
n the directory, so you don't need a dedicated mount. But
> Maybe you want to create a separate topic where you describe exatcly what the
> basic requirements are and ask for suggestions what the best solution may be.
> Maybe something like AppArmor rules or other methods that aren
On 14/06/2024 16:30, Julien Petit wrote:
What processes are CPU hungry?
[...]
udisksd,
This one does not use mount namespace for the obvious reason. However it
tends to generate unnecessary activity. Perhaps it needs optimizations
for your case.
(fstrim)
There were some bugs including
ked to sandboxing.
>
> > However do you need shared subtrees? It may cause exponential
> > growth of number of moutpoints, see
>
> We only use mount bind to share an initial folder with other users
> with different access rights (rw or ro). So we probably don't
the
directory, so you don't need a dedicated mount. But Maybe you want to create a
separate topic where you describe exatcly what the basic requirements are and
ask for suggestions what the best solution may be. Maybe something like
AppArmor rules or other methods that aren't known by y
xecution permissions, just crate a separate
> partition, mount it somewhere - e.g. /home/test/mounts and tell mount/fstab
> to use the option noexec. No need for for your script. Or if it's a more
> advanced file system like btrfs you may be able to simply create a subvolume
&
st them.
It seems to happen with all processes accessing mounts. And since
disabling sandboxing with php fixed the problem for the php process,
it looks like it is linked to sandboxing.
> However do you need shared subtrees? It may cause exponential growth of
> number of moutpoints, see
ust crate a
separate partition, mount it somewhere - e.g. /home/test/mounts and tell
mount/fstab to use the option noexec. No need for for your script. Or if
it's a more advanced file system like btrfs you may be able to simply
create a subvolume with the same capabilities, no need to tink
On 12/06/2024 17:02, Julien Petit wrote:
for i in {1..14000}
do
echo "Mounting dir $i"
mkdir "/home/test/directories/dir_$i"
mkdir "/home/test/mounts/dir_$i"
mount --bind -o rw "/home/test/directories/dir_$i"
"/home/test/mounts/dir
Dear,
Not sure i should report a bug so here is a report first. For more
than 10 years now, we've been using mount binds to create shares rw or
ro. It's been working perfectly under older Debian. A few months ago,
we migrated to Ubuntu Jammy and started having processes running 100
Steve Matzura wrote:
> mount /mnt/bigvol1/dir-1 /home/steve/dir-1 -o bind,ro
In addition to what others have observed it might be worth mentioning
that the -v option to mount (i.e. verbose) often gives more information
about what's going on.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 02:43:16PM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:
As Charles points out, this looks rather like CIFS, not NFS:
> # NAS box:
> //192.168.1.156/BigVol1 /mnt/bigvol1 cifs
> _netdev,username=,password=,ro 0 0
If Charles's (and my) hunch is cor
56/BigVol1 /mnt/bigvol1 cifs
_netdev,username=,password=,ro 0 0
Then I had the following line, replicated for several directories on bigvol1,
to bind them to directories on the home filesystem, all in a script called
/root/remount that I executed manually after each reboot:
mount /mnt/bigvol1/d
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 14:43:16 -0400
Steve Matzura wrote:
> # NAS box:
> //192.168.1.156/BigVol1 /mnt/bigvol1 cifs
> _netdev,username=,password=,ro 0 0
Possibly part of the problem is that this is a CIFS (Samba) mount, not
an NFS mount.
Is samba installed?
If you try to mount t
=,password=,ro 0 0
Then I had the following line, replicated for several directories on
bigvol1, to bind them to directories on the home filesystem, all in a
script called /root/remount that I executed manually after each reboot:
mount /mnt/bigvol1/dir-1 /home/steve/dir-1 -o bind,ro
I had d
There is laptop with debian sid.
Sometimes on this laptop something create '/propagated-mount/'
directory.
I try to search with 'propagated-mount' but found only pages about
namespaces.
Can anyone point me to right direction? Which package is responsible for
creating th
On Sun 04 Jun 2023 at 11:59:21 (-0400), ce wrote:
> I have a mountpoint where all files under it have a group `fuse`.
>
> This is strange to me.
>
> As far as I can remember, Ubuntu doesn't do this.
Is this a system that's been around since wheezy? Up until then,
Debian had a system group called
gt; >
> > What kind of hardware is this file system on?
> >
> > What kind of file system is it?
> >
> > How did you mount it? (Show the command you used, and any output that
> > it produced.)
> >
> > What does "mount" with
On 6/5/23 7:23 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> You can run the command "mount" with no arguments to see the details of
> each mounted file system. You don't even have to be root. I don't know
> how btrfs subvolumes work, so I don't know whether they appear in
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:00:18PM -0400, ce wrote:
> On 6/4/23 5:46 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > What kind of hardware is this file system on?
> >
> > What kind of file system is it?
> >
> > How did you mount it? (Show the command you used, and any output th
s this file system on?
>
> What kind of file system is it?
>
> How did you mount it? (Show the command you used, and any output that
> it produced.)
>
> What does "mount" with no arguments say about the file system? (Hint:
> you can grep for the name of the file system
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:59:21AM -0400, ce wrote:
> I have a mountpoint where all files under it have a group `fuse`.
You need to provide details, or else nobody can help you with anything.
What kind of hardware is this file system on?
What kind of file system is it?
How did you mount
I have a mountpoint where all files under it have a group `fuse`.
This is strange to me.
As far as I can remember, Ubuntu doesn't do this.
ghost is used to clone disk partition
it create .gho file, is it possible to mount it in linux?
Hello list,
I have the object storage service from the big providers (google cloud
storage, Amazon S3).
Now I want to mount them in Debian Linux as a block device.
Though I know there is s3fs:
sudo apt-get install s3fs
But i have no experience on it. Do you have any suggestion on using
1 - 100 of 2007 matches
Mail list logo
