| 1 |
On 02/09/2016 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200 |
| 3 |
> schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote: |
| 6 |
>> [...] |
| 7 |
>> [...] |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with |
| 10 |
>>>> mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> So in order to use a USB stick between multiple Gentoo systems with |
| 14 |
>>> ext2, I need to make sure my users have matching UIDs/GIDs? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Yes |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> The uids/gids/modes in the inodes themselves are the owners and perms, |
| 19 |
>> you cannot override them. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> So unless you have mode=666, you will need matching UIDs/GIDs (which |
| 22 |
>> is a royal massive pain in the butt to bring about without NIS or |
| 23 |
>> similar |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>>> I think |
| 26 |
>>> this is how I ended up on NTFS in the first place. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Didn't we have this discussion about a year ago? Sounds familiar now |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>>> Is there a |
| 31 |
>>> filesystem that will make that unnecessary and exhibit better |
| 32 |
>>> reliability than NTFS? |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well. |
| 35 |
>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large |
| 36 |
>> files on FAT. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> Which NTFS system are you using? |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes |
| 41 |
>> ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> ntfs-ng does have an annoyance that has bitten me more than once. When |
| 45 |
>> ntfs-nf writes to an FS, it can get marked dirty. Somehow, when used |
| 46 |
>> in a Windows machine the driver there has issues with the FS. Remount |
| 47 |
>> it in Linux again and all is good. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Well, ntfs-ng simply sets the dirty flag which to Windows means "needs |
| 50 |
> chkdsk". So Windows complains upon mount that it needs to chkdsk the |
| 51 |
> drive first. That's all. Nothing bad. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
No, that's not it. Read again what I wrote - i have a specific fail mode |
| 54 |
which I don't care to investigate, not the general dirty state flag |
| 55 |
setting you describe |
Archives