FTP vs SFTP vs HDFS vs NTFS vs EXT2, EXT3 [closed] - linux

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I just want to know how these protocols and file systems are related with each other, where each one is used.
FTP vs SFTP vs HDFS vs NTFS vs EXT2, EXT3
any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.

FTP is an old File Transfer Protocol, similar to HTTP but specialized for moving large files.
sftp is a totally different protocol. It is tunneled over ssh and is therefore encrypted.
HDFS is the Hadoop distributed filesystem. It is designed to hold many petabytes of data in a single filesystem image.
NTFS, ext2, and ext3 are operating system specific disk filesystems. NTFS is the primary filesystem on most Windows computers. ext2 used to be the de-facto Linux filesystem and has since been replaced by ext3 and now ext4. All of the ext filesystems are related and you can upgrade from ext2 -> ext3 -> ext4 in place.

Related

Getting files on linux UBUNTU from Windows [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying Linux UBUNTU on my windows system. I am knew in Linux UBUNTU.but I don't know that where I can find my files that were on windows 10.
In case you mean WSL Ubuntu:
Your Harddrives are mounted under /mnt/. I like to create a symbolic links to them in my home folder. The should be named like so:
/mnt/c # your C:\ drive
/mnt/s # your S:\ drive
...
In case you mean a Linux livesystem:
If you use a system with a graphical user interface, somewhere in your filemanager you should see the respective drive. Click on it and it should auto-mount. Afterwards you should be able to access your files just as you would expect via the filemanager.
In case you're in terminal mode (= you do not have any graphical user interface), things might get a little strange from a beginner's perspective. In this case I would recommend that you make yourself familiar with the rough structure of the linux filesystem and the commands mount, umount and sudo. Generaly said you will have to do the same thing your filemanager does for you. You mount the drive somewhere in the filesystem tree and then access the folder:
mount /dev/<drive> <directory> # mount your drive into the fs tree
cd <directory> # switch to that folder
ls # should display your drive's content

I need to add an old drive to a new Linux install [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am in the middle of upgrading my Linux server. The last step will require me to add the existing disk to the new server. So the existing disk will have a /root /home, etc. Will this screw Linux up? I will make sure to boot from the correct disk. Will I be able to mount the "old" drive under a different path?
Just to be clear, there is a new disk with /root, /home, etc. I just need to get the files off of the old disk.
If you mounted your disk to a directory which already contains data this data will be hidden until removing the mount.
So to keep your data safe you can create a new directory and mount the disk to it.

why sometimes we need to mount those files under root? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a newbie to mount. From what I know, the root file / is automatically mounted to /dev/xvda1 or /dev/sda1. In some of the tutorials, people mount file like /dummy to /dev/xvdb1, I don't understand what the meaning of doing this. Because it's parent root file / has already mounted. Could someone explain this to me?
Thanks in advance.
To throw out a very non-exclusive list of possibilities:
Sometimes / doesn't have the capacity for what you intend to use it for, so you want to use a filesystem located on a different physical device for extra storage.
Sometimes you want to mount content from a filesystem that isn't capable of being used as root -- for instance, a FAT or NTFS filesystem, which doesn't properly support UNIX semantics.
Sometimes your other block device is removable, and you're mounting it only temporarily.
Sometimes your other block device is located on media that isn't available at boot time -- requiring iSCSI setup or other operations that prevent it from being used as root without initrd / initramfs facilities your operating system doesn't provide.
Sometimes you want to use a different filesystem with different semantics -- for instance, maybe your xvdb1 is a GFS shared-block filesystem that other machines also have mounted at the same time for combined storage.
Sometimes you have a read-only block device with bulk contents that can't change, and you're mounting it to multiple VMs, vs systems having their own local read-write storage.
The number of possibilities is nearly endless.
This isn't a software development question, and doesn't belong on StackOverflow.

Initramfs, why is required for the mount root filesystem? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Why initramfs is needed in OS, why we can not mount the root filesystem without this file?
Why we can not mount root fileststem directly, but we need some intermediator (intramfs)?
And how to mount file system from kernel level (kernel side)?
To answer your question, you need to understand, boot process, & how the operating system determines and understands the root fs (which stores the config,bins,data,etc for the rest of the services that come up, when the system is up), the drivers required for talking to the hardware (ex: the storage device or hard disk). Therefore you need to bundle up at least the basic required modules (like file-system and device drivers etc) in your initramfs, to bring up the system and mount the root fs. This is also a duplicate of Is it possible to boot the Linux kernel without creating an initrd image?

mount point - permission denied [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I created a fuse mountpoint. After mounting, the file permissions are all screwed up and it says I cannot ls or cd. Permission denied.
The file permissions look like this:
d????????? ? ? ? ? ? temp
and when i list the mounted devices I get:
/dev/fuse on /temp type fuse (rw,nosuid,nodev)
I used mono-fuse. I just created a new folder with permissions 777 and then did a mount. After unmounting I can do all operations, but when I mount, I get such error.
I used
HelloFS.exe that comes along with mono fuse for testing.
Can someone shed some light on this weird behavior and what mistake i have done.
I expect there is an incompatiblity with the userspace fuse library you're using and the kernel fuse version. This results in the kernel not understanding responses and it returning and EIO for everything (including the stat calls that "ls" does).
You should try increasing the debug level. As it's a Mono / CLR application, ensure that the libraries are of an appropriate version for your kernel; you may not need to recompile it.
You should also note that when you mount a directory, the mount-point's original permissions are ignore (and hence need not be 0777) ; the root directory of the new filesystem takes its place.
(You should probably not mount such a filesystem in /temp either; it is an example not for temp files)

Resources