Can Dimdows do this...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. 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?
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
    D¹Oliveiro 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."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Matthew Poole <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
    >D¹Oliveiro 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?
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 10, 2005
    #3
  4. On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:01:01 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
    D¹Oliveiro doth scrawl:

    > In article <>,
    > Matthew Poole <> 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."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Tim Guest

    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 D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Matthew Poole <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:07 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
    >>D¹Oliveiro 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?
    Tim, Jun 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Bling-Bling Guest

    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."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    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.
    Shane, Jun 10, 2005
    #7
  8. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Bling-Bling Guest

    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."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    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.
    Shane, Jun 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Bling-Bling Guest

    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."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 10, 2005
    #10
  11. On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:23:23 +1200, someone purporting to be Bling-Bling
    didst scrawl:

    > 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?
    >

    Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
    (/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
    box I build), I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0 and
    /cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points for my
    camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in / and it
    wouldn't have mattered.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 10, 2005
    #11
  12. On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:11:15 +1200, someone purporting to be Bling-Bling
    didst scrawl:

    > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:08:13 +1200, Shane wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    >> 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!
    >

    How is Windows' C: any different to *nix's /? There's no difference that
    I can see. I theory you can get Windows to even mount your removable media
    into directories, though I wouldn't want to try it given how confused it
    gets about drive letters for things.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > 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.


    Yep it all works pretty much the same. But there are a few wrinkles to
    be aware of or work around - eg I don't think Volume Shadow Copy will
    work across the mount point.

    Also if you move a file across the mount point it is actually changing
    filesystems, so will inherit permissions from the new filesystem rather
    than keeping it's old ones. This is just similar to the usual
    differences between moving a file within and outside of its original
    filesystem. It's just that it isn't as easy to recognise when you are
    doing it.

    Usually no problem if you're aware of it.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:25:03 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

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

    > Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
    > (/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
    > box I build),


    Cool.

    I mount /boot /var and /usr/home as separate partitions, as well as swap
    and / partitions on my FreeBSD box.


    > I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0
    > and /cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points
    > for my camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in /
    > and it wouldn't have mattered.


    True, but it does make logical sense to have all user mountable devices
    mounted under /mnt .


    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."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    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?


    He meant unix forces you to have a single tree for your filesystems, not
    that you can only mount things directly under the / directory.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 10, 2005
    #15
  16. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:27:19 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    >> 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!
    >>

    > How is Windows' C: any different to *nix's /? There's no difference that
    > I can see.


    You don't need to install programmes within the C: partition. You can put
    them wherever you want - at least you can *try* to do that, with variable
    success depending on how well thought trough the installer ap was
    configured.

    You don't need to have the Windows Swap File located in the /WINDOWS
    directory - you can configure Windoze to put it anywhere on any partition
    on any HDD.


    > I theory you can get Windows to even mount your removable media
    > into directories, though I wouldn't want to try it given how confused it
    > gets about drive letters for things.


    There is a difference between what is theoretically possible and what is
    practical and reliable.


    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."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 10, 2005
    #16
  17. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    shannon Guest

    Bling-Bling wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:25:03 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
    >>>mount something directly into the / directory?
    >>>

    >>
    >>Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
    >>(/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
    >>box I build),

    >
    >
    > Cool.
    >
    > I mount /boot /var and /usr/home as separate partitions, as well as swap
    > and / partitions on my FreeBSD box.
    >
    >
    >
    >>I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0
    >>and /cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points
    >>for my camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in /
    >>and it wouldn't have mattered.

    >
    >
    > True, but it does make logical sense to have all user mountable devices
    > mounted under /mnt .
    >
    >
    > Bling Bling
    >


    It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
    directories if you are running a multi user environment
    shannon, Jun 10, 2005
    #17
  18. On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:50:51 +1200, someone purporting to be shannon didst
    scrawl:

    > Bling-Bling wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
    > directories if you are running a multi user environment

    Whose home directory? If you're sharing a CD across the entire system it
    makes sense for it to be shared globally.
    It's incredibly rare to have a multi-user system with more than one person
    actually using the terminal itself. If you've got shared resources, it's
    usually a server, and in that situation people are accessing it from a
    workstation that has the ability to mount CDs and USB memory devices
    locally.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 11, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <3yoqe.6448$>,
    "AD." <> wrote:

    >Matthew Poole wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >Yep it all works pretty much the same. But there are a few wrinkles to
    >be aware of or work around - eg I don't think Volume Shadow Copy will
    >work across the mount point.


    Can you stack mount points more than 2 deep?

    >Also if you move a file across the mount point it is actually changing
    >filesystems, so will inherit permissions from the new filesystem rather
    >than keeping it's old ones. This is just similar to the usual
    >differences between moving a file within and outside of its original
    >filesystem. It's just that it isn't as easy to recognise when you are
    >doing it.


    On *nix systems, "cp -a" means preserve modification dates, protections,
    even file ownership if possible. And that works both within and across
    filesystems. The "mv" command does this as a matter of course when
    moving a file between filesystems.
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 11, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <42aa1948$>, shannon <> wrote:

    >It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
    >directories if you are running a multi user environment


    Not necessarily. You might be sharing the device among multiple users.
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, Jun 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Dimdows + trains = hilarity

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    315
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    Jul 27, 2005
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Hefty licensing requirements for Dimdows Vista

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    322
    Waylon Kenning
    Oct 3, 2005
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dimdows Fragmentation

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 21, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    117
    Views:
    1,702
    Earl Grey
    Aug 2, 2006
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dimdows installs can last 2.4 years???

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,054
    oneofus
    Jan 1, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    835
    victor
    Aug 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page