Changing mount point permissions ?
 

Hi there.

I am currently facing problems to get the mountpoint of a local ext3 drive set to 777. It'll always end up with 775.
My umask is set to 000 in /etc/profile and ~/.profile is not used.

What do I miss here? What do I have to do to get it working?

THX a lot.

Why are you doing this? It is probably easier if the drive is only for storage, to format it FAT32, which will force the permissions to the equivalent of 777. That being said, do try and set your umask at 777, and see how you go.

You're kidding me. Fat32

and:

umask 777 masks a 777=rwxrwxrwx to --------- ?????


I actually found a solution by myself:

For mount you need to have the right options in place to get it going. The mount commands defines the default permissions of that
particular mount-point.

Though on ext3 e.g. "umask=000" is not working at all.

In my case adding "defaults" to the mount options to the ext3 mount did the trick. Now - don't ask me what's in "defaults". ;)

Of course one can also change perms manually once the drive is mounted. ( Perhaps it even works if you'd put the "chmod 777 /mount/point" into /etc/rc.local)

THX

Cheers

For an ext3 partition, use the chown and chmod commands after mounting the partition. When the filesystem is mounted, the permissions shown for the mount point will change.

Well, remember that ext3 only preserves file permissions within the file system, so mounting an external drive IMHO is not a big problem wih FAT32, so long as you are not using it for a SAMBA share or some such. I'm flexible with the technology I use!

irishbitte: Fat32's permissions are set en-mass for the entire filesystem by the mount command. It is useful if you are dual booting and want easy access when running windows, but is unsuitable for default linux use.

It is also susceptible to fragmentation is isn't the best choice for large filesytems.

Hmm, all fair points I guess regarding FAT32. I use it mainly because of a mixed windows / linux environment, and for backup images of machines. It just suits what I'm using it for. If I was setting up some form of NAS system, I would also go with ext3 or another open source FS. Just my two cents!

I guess you never needed to do any backup that's bigger than 4GB (minus one byte) which is the max file size in fat32.

When I need cross-OS accessibility, I use NTFS or one of the many ways that there are to access ext[23] fs's under windows.

Nope, you're wrong there i92guboj, actually if you use partimage, you can separate the image file into several image files of size ~2GB, and it is the default setting. That is only for complete off site backups, physically secured.

For regular backup, I use a combination of WinSCP, tar, and rsync to backup files to a backup server, which is ubuntu based. It is run using cron job scripts, and windows batch files, and works very well, and has gotten me out of one or two scrapes!

Well, yes. Cutting your backups in volumes is a possibility.

Still I see no reason to use fat32 when better fs's can be accessed by both OSes. But it's as valid as any other solution if it fits you :)

Tis hard to change habits of a lifetime! :) However, I'm in agreement about the options available, maybe I'll have to rethink my back up strategy, might not be great if my FAT32 backups get screwed for some reason (fragmentation or some such lunacy).

Cheers anyway, food for thought..