Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Can Dimdows do this...

Reply
Thread Tools

Can Dimdows do this...

 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
OK, here's another question. As far as I can tell, Windows has a
long-standing limitation of only being able to deal with about 26
mounted filesystems at once, because it only allows single-letter drive
names. Unix/Linux systems have no such limitation, because of their
flexibly mount-point-based filesystem architecture.

Will Shorthorn lift this drive-letter limitation?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
DčOliveiro doth scrawl:

> OK, here's another question. As far as I can tell, Windows has a
> long-standing limitation of only being able to deal with about 26
> mounted filesystems at once, because it only allows single-letter drive
> names. Unix/Linux systems have no such limitation, because of their
> flexibly mount-point-based filesystem architecture.
>

This hasn't been true since Win2K. 2K and newer allow filesystems to be
mounted as directories, either within the C: root or under other drives
that have been mounted as letters.

> Will Shorthorn lift this drive-letter limitation?

You mean Longwait.
--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
>DčOliveiro doth scrawl:
>
>> OK, here's another question. As far as I can tell, Windows has a
>> long-standing limitation of only being able to deal with about 26
>> mounted filesystems at once, because it only allows single-letter drive
>> names. Unix/Linux systems have no such limitation, because of their
>> flexibly mount-point-based filesystem architecture.
>>

>This hasn't been true since Win2K. 2K and newer allow filesystems to be
>mounted as directories, either within the C: root or under other drives
>that have been mounted as letters.


How do you specify those filesystems? Don't they have to be mounted on a
drive letter first, then spliced into a subdirectory with SUBST or
whatever the command is?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:01:01 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
DčOliveiro doth scrawl:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

*SNIP*
>>This hasn't been true since Win2K. 2K and newer allow filesystems to be
>>mounted as directories, either within the C: root or under other drives
>>that have been mounted as letters.

>
> How do you specify those filesystems? Don't they have to be mounted on a
> drive letter first, then spliced into a subdirectory with SUBST or
> whatever the command is?


I've no idea how you'd do it on the command line, but through the Computer
Manager you format the partition then choose where to mount it, and the
mount point can be a directory on an existing drive or it can be a new
drive.
It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
If you are trying to configure such a system now then I suggest you stop
dead in your tracks and do a thorough review of your file store system
architecture, disc drive subsystems, sizes, use of RAID, hardware, and so
on. If you do not understand what I am saying then I suggest strongly that
you hire a competent consultant immediately as you appear to be out of your
depth. You are likely to create a configuration that will fall a long way
short of satisfying customer needs and end up consting them a substantial
amount of money to fix when you are gone. This applies regardless of OS.

It would be extremely foolish to leap in and configure a large number of
drives in a willy nilly manner particularly if you know so little about
Windows.

It would be equally foolish on a Unix or Linux or any other system.

- Tim



"Lawrence DčOliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
>>DčOliveiro doth scrawl:
>>
>>> OK, here's another question. As far as I can tell, Windows has a
>>> long-standing limitation of only being able to deal with about 26
>>> mounted filesystems at once, because it only allows single-letter drive
>>> names. Unix/Linux systems have no such limitation, because of their
>>> flexibly mount-point-based filesystem architecture.
>>>

>>This hasn't been true since Win2K. 2K and newer allow filesystems to be
>>mounted as directories, either within the C: root or under other drives
>>that have been mounted as letters.

>
> How do you specify those filesystems? Don't they have to be mounted on a
> drive letter first, then spliced into a subdirectory with SUBST or
> whatever the command is?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bling-Bling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:07:32 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

> It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
> it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.


How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
mount something directly into the / directory?


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:23:23 +1200, Bling-Bling wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:07:32 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>> It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
>> it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.

>
> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
> mount something directly into the / directory?
>
>
> Bling Bling



everytime I mount something
he didnt mean.. mount /dev/hda2 /
he meant mount /dev/hdd /mnt/cdrom
ie.. thats a subdirectory of /
--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bling-Bling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:27:49 +1200, Shane wrote:

>> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
>> mount something directly into the / directory?

>
> everytime I mount something
> he didnt mean.. mount /dev/hda2 /
> he meant mount /dev/hdd /mnt/cdrom
> ie.. thats a subdirectory of /


Surely that's more properly an example of mounting into a subdirectory of
/mnt - not of / .

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that he meant "mount /dev/hda2 /" per se. Rather
was suggesting his example was like being forced to mount something like
"mount /dev/hda2 /mounted-here" rather than having the choice of being
able to put it where ever you want it to go.


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:00:43 +1200, Bling-Bling wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:27:49 +1200, Shane wrote:
>
>>> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
>>> mount something directly into the / directory?

>>
>> everytime I mount something
>> he didnt mean.. mount /dev/hda2 /
>> he meant mount /dev/hdd /mnt/cdrom
>> ie.. thats a subdirectory of /

>
> Surely that's more properly an example of mounting into a subdirectory of
> /mnt - not of / .
>
> BTW, I wasn't suggesting that he meant "mount /dev/hda2 /" per se. Rather
> was suggesting his example was like being forced to mount something like
> "mount /dev/hda2 /mounted-here" rather than having the choice of being
> able to put it where ever you want it to go.
>
>
> Bling Bling


cd /
ls
bin mnt proc etal are all sub directorys of root
and /mnt/cdrom is a sub directory of mnt
so all filesystems are mounted relative to root
you cant have.. for example.. two roots /
one on hda and one on hdb

--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bling-Bling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2005
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:08:13 +1200, Shane wrote:

>> BTW, I wasn't suggesting that he meant "mount /dev/hda2 /" per se.
>> Rather was suggesting his example was like being forced to mount
>> something like "mount /dev/hda2 /mounted-here" rather than having the
>> choice of being able to put it where ever you want it to go.
>>
>>
>> Bling Bling

>
> cd /
> ls
> bin mnt proc etal are all sub directorys of root and /mnt/cdrom is a sub
> directory of mnt so all filesystems are mounted relative to root you cant
> have.. for example.. two roots / one on hda and one on hdb


If course now I see - I should have finished that sentence - "...choice of
being able to put it where ever you want it to go within the directory
tree." Of *course* everything is inside the one / directory!


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dimdows Command-Line: Can't Live With It, Can't Live Without It Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 15 08-17-2009 11:59 AM
Dimdows installs can last 2.4 years??? Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 35 01-01-2009 10:08 AM
Dimdows Fragmentation Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 117 08-02-2006 10:37 AM
Hefty licensing requirements for Dimdows Vista Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 5 10-03-2005 10:45 AM
Dimdows + trains = hilarity Lawrence DčOliveiro NZ Computing 0 07-27-2005 01:53 AM



Advertisments