Marc Chamberlin said the following on 02/09/2011 07:00 PM:
What do you mean by
"the device is BELOW the mount point"? It has become clear that I cannot mount anything "ABOVE" the mount point, like / and then expect to be able to access /media/MyPassport, because of an NFS restriction.
Correct.
OK, but I am exporting what appears to me as THE mount point and that should be sufficient for NFS since I am giving my blessing to NFS to export THE mount point. What do you mean by "BELOW"? That just does not make any kind of sense!
If you read the NFS man page it is quite clear. You need to export the directory and mount point. So I've exported Server:/home/anton but there is another fs mounted on server:/home/anton/PDF so I have to export that AS WELL Not one or the other. BOTH And, again, read the manual: you need to tell the server that you don't want the second FS to be hidden. Its there in the manual. So you need something like /media \ 192.168.x.0/255.255.255.0(rw,async,no_root_squash,crossmnt) /media/sdb1 \ 192.168.x.0/255.255.255.0(rw,async,no_root_squash,crossmnt,nohide) RTFM As for permission, it clear that you are mounting the USB with the wrong permissions. Example 1 clear out the mount 2 chown marc.users /media/sdb1 That sets the ownership of the mount point 3 insert the usb and let the kernel mount it PLEASE DO NO USE THE AUTOMOUNTER MAPS THEY JUST CONFUSE THE MATTER 4 verify its mounted $ mount ... /dev/sdb1 on /media/sdb1 type vfat (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev....) .... OR WHATEVER 5 now check ownership of the mount point ls -l /media/sdb1 If I'm right, that's no lover "marc.users" so all the files on the mounted VFAT aren't either Both Tajas and myself have suggested you experiment with manually mounting. I don't think you understood. The word experiment means try variations. You point out in mail to Tajas that you tried mount -t auto /dev/sdc1 /mnt/usbdrive -o rw,nodev,noexec BUT YOU DIDN"T SAY WHAT UID YOU EXECUTED that as. Of course if you did that as 'uid=marc' than the mount is owned by 'marc'. If you do it as root then its owned by root. Guess what the kernel event driven mechanisms out of HAL operates as? $ ps -ef |grep sdb root 1680 1405 0 18:27 ? 00:00:00 hald-addon-storage: polling /dev/sdb (every 16 sec) Right - ROOT !! So it gets mounted as root. Now as root you can FORCE a different UID mount -t auto /dev/sdc1 /mnt/usbdrive \ -o rw,nodev,noexec,uid=<marc>,gid=<users>,umask=007 Now you want to substitute in there the numeric values. I think you said that marc=10001 "users" ... look it up /etc/groups. Its should be 100 So you have -o rw,nodev,noexec,uid=1001,gid=100,umask=007 Do that mount command as root, just as HAL would, and see what you get. Personally I'd use umask=007,fmask=0117,dmask=0007 but then I believe in not fighting Linux access permissions. So you need to make sure that the USB is always mounted like that. So put those values in /etc/fstab. None of this is weird; this is how Linux works and its all documented. If you'd backed off and experimented and read the MAN pages you'd have found this. ITS ALL DOCUMENTED. But you seem intent on hammering at the same-old-same-old and making disparaging remarks about Linux and the way it works. Its odd how those of us who are more relaxed and believe that the people who made the design decisions did so for sensible reasons, and that mature products like NFS have been worked over by many minds, minds smarter than you or me, can get these things to work. Its sort of like Ju-Jitsu, don't resist, use the opponents strength .... go with the flow. You derogatory attitude towards Linux and its facilities does not encourage people to help you. Patrick just suggested alternative methods of achieving the end result. Others have been put forward. What we're saying boils down to If you're not getting anywhere banging your head against the wall, why not stop and walk around the end of it instead? Which is why, despite what you say, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT MY APPLICATION IS, the objective matters. Achieving the objective means that getting hung up on one method that isn't working is not productive. In fact even with NFS - or CIFS - working "properly", you are not doing things right. Copy overwrites. You want to keep both USBs in sync as changes are made. That is what RSYNC is for. Yes you can use RSYNC with NFS cross-mounted devices, but it also works in the absence of NFS or CIFS. A small script, python using gamin perhaps, that notices changes to the file (File Alteration Monitoring - do a search) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_alteration_monitor and then use RSYNC. This would be most efficient for a number of reasons, not least of all reducing latency and making the issue of NFS/CIFS irrelevant. No-one is forcing you to stop banging you head against a wall. That you won't consider alternatives indicates you META-process is wrong. NFS can handle it; it is neither broken not badly designed. As I keep saying, "It works for me". It is your antagonistic attitude that is your problem. -- "Objectives are not fate; they are direction. They are not commands; they are commitments. They do not determine the future; they are a means to mobilize resources and energies of the business for the making of the future." -- Peter F. Drucker. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org