How do I Mount a Windows NTFS file system
 

My there is a Windows xp computer named front1 on the network with a shared directory named tbird on it. I need to mount the tbird directory on my unix box in /mnt/tbird1. I've tried this:
mount nfs //front1/tbird /mnt/tbird1 but get the message
file system nfs not valid. I've also tried:
mount ntfs //front1/tbird /mnt/tbird1
and get the message
file system ntfs not valid.....

What would be correct syntax for mounting a ntfs directory....

------------btw, this is sco 5.04 but hopefully will work the same....

thanks !

smbmount //front1/tbird /mnt/tbird

SAMBA doesn't care what file system it is.

If it's on the same computer and you're not using SAMBA then you do:

mount -t ntfs /dev/hda1 /mnt/tbird

This box does not have samba running on it so I can't use smbmount. Is there any way to mount this share with mount ?????

You are confused.

Windows machines never run samba. Windows machines have their own networking software. Samba is a program that can talk to windows networking.

NTFS is a paticular way of storing files on a harddrive. NFS is a network protcol.
NTFS and NFS are different things. Windows machines don't use NFS.

I guess I am confused. What I think you're telling me is that I MUST use samba to mount a remote windows share on my unix box - is this correct ?
and "mount" is only for mounting local file systems ?

Does anybody know if I copy the smbmount command or the smbclient command from another working samba enabled system onto my box will those commands work by themselves, or would I actually have to install the entire samba package? Reason I'm asking is this is a very old very fragile sco unix box (V 5.04) and I want to tread lightly with it....It has very important data on it and no backup. That's what I am trying to do is connect to a remote windows computer on the network and backup some files before this thing dies.....

>I MUST use samba to mount a remote windows share on my unix box - is this correct ?
Yes, but there are other options to achieve what you want to do.

>"mount" is only for mounting local file systems ?
No, you can use it for remote filesystems if you give it the correct command
and have the appropriate software installed.

>f I copy the smbmount command or the smbclient command from
>another working samba enabled system onto my box will those
>commands work?
No

Other options to get your data off the machine include;

Put the harddrive in another machine. Don't know what filesystem SCO
unix uses but a linux might be able to mount it.

Run an ftp server on another machine and use an ftp client on the SCO box.
There are many free ftp server software packages for windows.

You could also try rsync if it is available for SCO.

Whatever method you choose, keep Windoze file system's limitations in mind when backing up. Do you need to preserve upper/lower case file names? What if you have files named "file" and "File" in the same dir? Which one will you keep? Windoze won't let you keep both. Do you need to preserve soft/hard links? Permissions? Backing up to a Linux box might be a MUCH better option.

As far as putting the sco hard drive in a linux box, it's got an antique raid configuration with multiple drives and I am not sure how it's all setup - don't want to chance messing with the hardware unless there's no other way.

Just curious - if I setup a Linux box and put it on this network, would it be possible to "mount" this old sco box into a /mnt/subdir over the network ?
would i need to add username= or password= to the mount statement in order to connect
Assuming the sco box has the same file system as linux, how would that work ?:
mount nfs //scobox/directory /mnt/subdir username=user,password=passwd.... ?
this might be easier to do this than to mess with samba and windows....

suggestions ?....

You're still confusing filesystems used on hard drives with network data exchange protocols. Whether Linux box uses ext3, reiser, xfs or whatever else is pretty much irrelevant if you want to mount it through nfs. Same for SCO box. The only consideration is whether your target filesystem/platform supports the features I mentioned previously, but you don't say if that's relevant at all. What is relevant, if you're stuck on mounting something in /mnt directory before backing up data, is what network protocols are available on both ends. If you only have nfs server on SCO, your best bet might be to get a Linux box with nfs on it. You'd need to add appropriate entries to SCO's equivalent of /etc/exports file to tell nfs which locations you wish to make available to which clients and with what permissions. Use man to learn details. Don't forget to (re)start portmap and nfs services on SCO after modifying the exports file.

Still, my favorite hammer is rsync. At least read about it.

Gutting the SCO to plug it's drives into Linux box is definitely a bad idea, for many reasons.

"Do you need to preserve upper/lower case file names? "

Yes, very relevant - absolutely, and sorry I didn't say that in my last post. I wasn't very clear about my reasons for wanting a file system mounted in my earlier posts, but I was thinking I could create a tar file backup that puts the tar file on the target file system. The tar file would preserve file names and cases, and directory structure whether it was on a windows box or a linux box. I could then automate the tar backup job with crontab so it could run at regular intervals. But, With samba not on the sco box, I think using the windows box is too much trouble, and using ftp from the windows box to copy the files would not preserve file name cases - not good.

I don't know a thing about rsync but I will take you advice and read up on it. It's possible that rsync may not even exist on the sco box.

I appreciate all the help...

Doing backups from cron you say? That's exactly what I do nightly to back up my servers using rsync. AFAIC it is perfect for the job.

Have you considered the size of your tar archives? Can the filesystem on which you want to store tars handle files of that size? I know this wouldn't work for me. Also, if I'm not mistaken, nfs only allows files up to 2GB. Besides, pulling files out of tars can get troublesome.

Thanks Art, I'm going to see if rsync is on this subject sco system this weekend. To be real honest, there is a **LOT** of stuff missing and not working on that system, and I don't use sco anyway which hasn't helped. It's a very user-UNfriendly system to begin with, and it's at a customer location and I was just trying to use something I already knew how to use quick and easy - tar, to keep my time and effort to a minimum. They're going to be replacing it with a new linux system later this year but were getting paranoid about not having backups of anykind. Does rsync create a compressed file or how does it work ? How would I tell if rsync is installed or not ? Thanks again.

Linux Sux
 

This is a perfect example of why Linux will fail as a consumer OS, or as an OS for small biz owners who have a basic grasp of networking.

Take a simple command from Windows "net use z: \\server\c$". See how easy it is? Now contrast this with Linux. After several hours, I'm still clueless on how to do this. There are tons of "suggestions" on the web, but NO ONE has actually tried to do this!! Not a single step-by-step process to mount a simple NTFS file system under Linux so that Linux users can access files R/W on a NT server. Seems like everyone just copies and passes the same wrong answers to post after post. If you don't REALLY know the answer, why not just stay out altogether? Why confuse people with all this jargon when you really don't know the answer? I suggest you shut off your computer, go down to the local pub, and impress all the women there with your brains and stay out of posting.

As long as you all give incomplete, untested, arcane answers boasting all your technical knowledge and prowess, the average user is just left scratching his head saying, "huh?"

Do you all really think we're going to run to Linux in droves when a simple command like "net use" has no apparant easy, uncomplicated equivilant in Linux? As small business owners, we MUST leverage our existing infrastructure which means we must keep our existing NT/W2K servers until the bitter end. We can't afford to move completely to Linux, 'cuz I'd have to hire ANOTHER techie just to figure out how to map a network drive.

Yeah, I already know what your answer is: "go Linux all the way!!"

Yeah, right...

Well Offred - you really picked the wrong thread for this comment - SCO is a commercial UNIX product and not even Linux at all.

Offred...

People like you deserve to stick with Windows. The reason Linux might seem complicated and overwhelming at first, is that the operating system is so much more powerful and has many more capabilities than anything else you may be used to. Furthermore, if you aren't sure exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish, you will sure become frustrated, as you clearly are. And you're not even the one with the problem...