Code: Select all
ntfs-3g /dev/sdc4 /mnt/sdc4
Code: Select all
ntfs-3g /dev/sdc4 /mnt/sdc4
This works. Thanks.rcrsn51 wrote:Because this is an NTFS partition, try this mount command instead.Code: Select all
ntfs-3g /dev/sdc4 /mnt/sdc4
I'm not currently manually entering credentials when browsing the Puppy server in Windows Explorer. Windows was previously prompting for credentials. I may have ticked a checkbox for "remember my credentials" at some point. Or it may just be that I changed something in the smb.conf which enables access without authentication. So I'm not really sure.rcrsn51 wrote:Are you using authentication? In Windows Explorer, do you need to enter a password in order to access the share?
It allows me to enter credentials for connecting to a network. I have tested it both with and without credentials. The software has a button you can press to "test connection". The test always says "success" regardless of whether credentials are used or not. It seems the connection may not be requiring credentials. Though again, not sure.rcrsn51 wrote:Does your backup software let you add any options when connecting to the Puppy server?
Per your suggestion, I mapped the network share to a drive letter and tried using it that way with the backup software. However, this method doesn't fix the problem I'm having. Incidentally, the backup software actually suggests that it would be "better not to use a drive letter" and that I should use the "\\[server]\[share]" method instead, but allows me to use the drive letter anyway if I so choose.rcrsn51 wrote:There is a way in Windows to assign a drive letter, like F:, to the share. That might be a better way for your backup software to access it.
You probably enabled the "map to guest" line in the smb.conf. I would go back to the original configuration that requires authentication with root:woofwoof. Then try authenticating in your backup software.toronado wrote:So I'm not really sure.
No, I'm not using guest access. I was referring to the fact that I need to have "force user = root" on the share otherwise I get permissions and "file in use" errors in Windows.rcrsn51 wrote:You probably enabled the "map to guest" line in the smb.conf.
I found where Windows was storing my credentials and deleted them. Then I tried entering the credentials manually, both in Windows Explorer and in the backup software. However this didn't solve the problem.rcrsn51 wrote:I would go back to the original configuration that requires authentication with root:woofwoof. Then try authenticating in your backup software.
I suppose that is what I'll need to try next. Would I need to uninstall/remove Samba-TNG first, or just disable the auto-start function?rcrsn51 wrote:If it still fails, I would try installing one of the full Samba packages.
Yup, that works fine, as do most other Windows-native programs. It's just something about this particular one that's being stubborn. Even after completely deleting my credentials and re-mapping the drive letter, I still can't get it to work right.rcrsn51 wrote:I ran the following test.
1. I started....
Possibly? It's a very odd error message:rcrsn51 wrote:I expect that the problem is with your application. It is trying to find the size of the target drive as if it was a local drive. But the Samba server cannot report that information back to the application.
Maybe one the full-sized Samba packages would report its share size.
Code: Select all
---movies (drive Z: )
|
|--disk 1
|
|--disk2
|
|--disk3
That was the issue. As soon as I set "disk3" to have it's own share (and mount under it's own drive letter), the error message went away.ralplpcr wrote:<snip>
I'll try sharing them individually to see if that fixes the problem. If it does, then I just need to figure out how to make my smb.conf organize them better. </snip>
That would seem to be the answer. You have a non-network-aware application trying to access a single drive Z: that is exceeding the standard 2 TB limit for Windows.ralplpcr wrote:They're formatted NTFS, so overall available size is around 3.1tb.
I thought of that, but it doesn't make sense how it worked that way when I had them running in the 2003 server using that setup. If that's the case, then I wonder what will happen when I replace one of those drives with a 3TB drive, as I was planning to do in the near future? Will I be able to "see" it at all?rcrsn51 wrote:You have a non-network-aware application trying to access a single drive Z: that is exceeding the standard 2 TB limit for Windows.