Search Results

Search found 1390 results on 56 pages for 'ntfs'.

Page 10/56 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• Does moving a file outside NTFS loose data in alertnate data streams?

  - by jay

  I have a lot of files on machine running Windows Server 2008 which I wanted to move to a Fedora machine. How can I keep the attributes stored in, for example, media files (date taken, rating, length, etc) while transfering it to outside the realm of NTFS's Alternate Data Streams. I'm aware that similar metadata exists in other file systems, but what happens when you move these files? And what's the best way to retain them in other file systems?

  Read the article

• Storage device manger regarding NTFS automount at boot time

  - by muneesh

  I am using storage device manager to auto-mount NTFS file system at boot time.But repeatedly, I am trying to uncheck the checkbox listed 'read only mode' in assistant option of storage device manager. I am not able to to auto-mount my NTFS partition in read/write mode. Please suggest a solution regarding this problem? Remember I am repeatedly trying to uncheck read only checkbox but not able to do that!

  Read the article

• Can I stop OSX from creating .DS_Store / ._blah files everywhere on NTFS?

  - by t-a-w

  These files really get on my nerves. Can I make OSX not create them somehow? (._blah are only created on NTFS external disk, .DS_Store are created everywhere)

  Read the article

• Ubuntu took away permissions from my Data partition

  - by RobinJ

  The pangolin has struck again. The bug of the day for today is Ubuntu taking away my permissions on my Data partition (NTFS). One moment everything worked fine, the next moment I couldn't chmod anything anymore. chown throws no errors or warnings at all, but nothing has changed either. chmod keeps saying Operation not permitted. I've been messing around with /etc/fstab as suggested by other answers on AskUbuntu, but none of them seem to have the desired effect. This is my current line: UUID=25D7D681409A96B7 /media/Data ntfs defaults,umask=000,gid=46,permissions,users,auto,exec 0 0 For reference, this is the original one: UUID=25D7D681409A96B7 /media/Data ntfs defaults,umask=007,gid=46 0 0 (right after the problem started occuring) What do I need to do so I am the owner of my own hard drive again? I want to be able to just use chmod and chown (without sudo) without being told that some mysterious alien has taken over control of my Data partition. I can still read and write, but execution permissions seem to be the problem.

  Read the article

• GPT Not mounting using "normal" GPT mounting techniques 12.04

  - by Roy Markham

  I've got two 2TB drivess: one MBR and the other GPT. sudo blckid /dev/sdb1 returns a blank. gdisk shows: Partition table scan: MBR: protective BSD: not present APM: not present GPT: present Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. Warning! Secondary partition table overlaps the last partition by 1970 blocks! You will need to delete this partition or resize it in another utility. Disk /dev/sdb: 3907027055 sectors, 1.8 TiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): 38A1113D-B5E9-4B69-ABFF-ACB27AFB3DDD Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907027021 Partitions will be aligned on 8-sector boundaries Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name 1 34 262177 128.0 MiB 0C01 Microsoft reserved part 2 264192 3907028991 1.8 TiB 0700 Basic data partition mounting via fstab or -t gives same error when using NTFS or NTFS-3g "NTFS signature is missing" GParted says one partition is overwriting another, yet windows shows no errors at all. The drive is also mounted easily via MacOs (triple boot)

  Read the article

• Why I can't open folders copied from Ubuntu on Windows?

  - by user37805

  Is not possible for me to open whatever folder I copy from Ubuntu to my Windows partition or whatever usb memory. Windows says the folder's location is either disconnected or doesn't exist. Can't copy, cut or delete the folder on Windows but with Ubuntu I can. This happens even if I create the folder on the ntfs disc. I have never had this problem before. Files are openable however, but not if they are inside a folder. This started after I haven't made any other changes except for the update to kernel 3.2.0-30-generic, I am using 12.04, never installed Samba, after this problem started I tried to fix it by installing ntfs-3f, ntfsprogs, ntfs-config, but It didn't work.

  Read the article

• Resize primary partition

  - by telebog

  I have a hdd with the folowing partition table 12Gb Primary Partition (ntfs) 140Gb Extended Partition (ntfs) I want to install windows 7 and I need more space for the Primary Partition. The problem is that when I resize partitons I obtain: 12Gb Primary Partition (ntfs) 110Gb Extended Partition (ntfs) 30Gb Free Space So I can't allocate the free space to primary partition because the free space is at the end of the disk. Is there a solution to extend the primary partition as: 42Gb Primary Partition (ntfs) 110Gb Extended Partition (ntfs) without repartitioning the entire disk? I used partition magic, gparted-live-0.4.6-4 and others with no success. With the Disk Management from Vista I manage to extend primary partition, but made my partitions dinamic.

  Read the article

• Mimic NTFS "Modify" Permissions on an ext3 acl enabled filesystem in linux?

  - by bobinabottle

  I am migrating our file share from Windows Server to Samba on Linux, and the only hurdle I have at the moment is the acl's. Currently we have a number of directories that use the "Modify" permission on NTFS, so users can write to a directory, but once the file is written it cannot be modified. On Linux, I had the idea that I would set an ACL for the directory to have read/write access, but have a default ACL associated with read only access. Is this possible? I'm not quite sure how to set a default ACL that differs from the parent directory. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Can you link an NTFS junction point to a directory on a Network Attached Storage?

  - by Zachary Burt

  I'm using Windows, and I want to use Dropbox to back up a folder outside my Dropbox directory. So I want to create a junction point from my target directory to my Dropbox folder. Accoding to the Wikipedia article on NTFS junction points, which the Dropbox answer links to: "Junction points can only link to directories on a local volume; junction points to remote shares are unsupported." I am looking to link to a directory on networked attached storage, which would not be a local volume, I believe. What should I do?

  Read the article

• My NTFS Partition keeps becoming "unusable" on Ubuntu, Any Ideas?

  - by gopherman

  I just purchased a new 2TB Drive External Seagate, My main system uses both Windows and Ubuntu So I am pretty much stuck with keeping my drive as NTFS. I have done this without any problems before but since I got this new drive I have been having issues. When I first load up Ubuntu the drive mounts and runs fine, after an unspecified amount of time i start getting Input/Output errors when accessing the drive. When I goto the Disk Utility I get a message stating the drive is "Unknown or Unused", If I disconnect and reconnect the drive or reboot everything is fine again. There's no errors coming up with S.M.A.R.T and it seems to work fine while under windows. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• My NTFS Partition keeps becoming "unusable" on Ubuntu, Any Ideas?

  - by gopherman

  I just purchased a new 2TB Drive External Seagate, My main system uses both Windows and Ubuntu So I am pretty much stuck with keeping my drive as NTFS. I have done this without any problems before but since I got this new drive I have been having issues. When I first load up Ubuntu the drive mounts and runs fine, after an unspecified amount of time i start getting Input/Output errors when accessing the drive. When I goto the Disk Utility I get a message stating the drive is "Unknown or Unused", If I disconnect and reconnect the drive or reboot everything is fine again. There's no errors coming up with S.M.A.R.T and it seems to work fine while under windows. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• How can I trace NTFS and Share Permissions to see why I can (or can't) write a file

  - by hometoast

  I'm trying to track down WHY I can write in a folder that, by my best estimation, I should not be able to write. The folder is shared with "Everyone" has "Full Control", with the files being more restrictive. My best guess is there's some sort of sub-group membership that's allowing me to write, but the nesting of groups that exists in our Active Directory is pretty extensive. Is there a tool, that will tell me which of the ACL entries allowed or disallowed my writing a file in a folder? The Effective Permissions dialog is marginally helpful, but what I need is something like a "NTFS ACL Trace Tool", if such a thing exists.

  Read the article

• How can I make a non-destructive copy of a (NTFS) partition?

  - by violet313

  I want to recover some deleted files from a healthy NTFS partition on an undamaged hard-disk. In order to leave the partition undisturbed, i plan to use dd to clone the partition to a raw image file & then attempt recovery from that mounted clone. Will dd if=/dev/sd<xn> of=/path/to/output.img perform a non-destructive copy ? Is attempting a restore from a clone using dd the best approach? [edit, wrt Deltiks answer, i need to be a bit clearer about what i'm asking] eg: are there some s/w that can do something more with the original sectors ? eg: if it was a damaged hard-disk i am aware that any kind of read is potentially destructive. but assuming my disk head is not going to suddenly spaz out etc, am i reducing my chances of a successful recovery (at any cost) by using an apparently non-destructive single read of my undamaged hard-disk. (btw: i am planning on using ntfsundelete & testdisk for recovery)

  Read the article

• How to restrict deletion of a folder on NTFS share, but still allow modify access within folder

  - by thinkdreams

  I am setting up a set of scan folders from a scanning copier device, and would like to know the best way to protect the folders (for each department) from moving or deletion, but yet still allow access for the users to modify (i.e. create/add/delete) the scanned files within the folder. Structure is: Share Name Departmental Folder User files The writing of the files initially is taken care of by a service account which has full control. We'd just like to ensure the users cannot accidentally delete the folder (which has already happened) containing all the files, etc. This is for a Windows 2003 server, NTFS permissions. Suggestions would be most appreciated.

  Read the article

• How can I check the actual size used in an NTFS directory with many hardlinks?

  - by kbyrd

  On a Win7 NTFS volume, I'm using cwrsync which supports --link-dest correctly to create "snapshot" type backups. So I have: z:\backups\2010-11-28\cygdrive\c\Users\... z:\backups\2010-12-02\cygdrive\c\Users\... The content of 2010-12-02 is mostly hardlinks back to files in the 2010-11-28 directory, but there are a few new or changed files only in 2010-12-02. On linux, the 'du' utility will tell me the actual size taken by each incremental snapshot. On Windows, explorer and du under cygwin are both fooled by hardlinks and shows 2010-12-02 taking up a little more space than 2010-11-28. Is there a Windows utility that will show the correct space acutally used?

  Read the article

• How to restrict deletion of a folder on NTFS share, but still allow modify access within folder

  - by thinkdreams

  I am setting up a set of scan folders from a scanning copier device, and would like to know the best way to protect the folders (for each department) from moving or deletion, but yet still allow access for the users to modify (i.e. create/add/delete) the scanned files within the folder. Structure is: Share Name Departmental Folder User files The writing of the files initially is taken care of by a service account which has full control. We'd just like to ensure the users cannot accidentally delete the folder (which has already happened) containing all the files, etc. This is for a Windows 2003 server, NTFS permissions. Suggestions would be most appreciated.

  Read the article

• How does Linux's unlink on a NTFS filesystem differs from Window's own implementation?

  - by DavideRossi

  I have an external USB disk with an NTFS filesystem on it. If I remove a file from Windows and I run one of the several "undelete" utilities (say, TestDisk) I can easily recover the file (because "it's still there but it's marked as deleted"). If I remove the file from Linux (I'm using Ubuntu) no utility can recover the file (unless I use a deep-search signature-based one). Why? It looks like Linux does not just "mark it as deleted" but it wipes away some on-disk structure, is this the case?

  Read the article

• Should Exterrnal USB hard drive auto mount Ubuntu 12.04.01 LTS

  - by Chris Good

  I want to have external USB hard drives automatically mounted when plugged in. I have 2 drives exactly the same except for volume label. They both have the same UUID. I want to be easily able to swap them as I'm using them for backups and want to keep 1 at home for off site backup. I've set up the /etc/fstab so they should mount at different places based on their volume label: /etc/fstab : LABEL=Passport1 /media/Passport1 ntfs defaults,windows_names,locale=en_US.utf8 0 0 LABEL=Passport2 /media/Passport2 ntfs defaults,windows_names,locale=en_US.utf8 0 0 blkid shows : ... /dev/sdc1: LABEL="Passport2" UUID="4E1AEA7B1AEA6007" TYPE="ntfs" /dev/sdd1: LABEL="Passport1" UUID="4E1AEA7B1AEA6007" TYPE="ntfs" They both mount automatically during reboot but do not mount when just plugged in to a running system. I've read lots of stuff about this, much of it is old so I'm not sure if it applies. I've read some stuff that says the mounts should happen automatically when plugged in, and lots of other stuff that says you have to install other software to make this happen, although much of it just seems to set up the fstab. What's the real story? Here is /var/log/syslog when drive is plugged in: Dec 14 11:22:58 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66221.300196] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 6 using ehci_hcd Dec 14 11:22:58 ausyvutims1 mtp-probe: checking bus 1, device 6: "/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/0000:02:03.0/usb1/1-1" Dec 14 11:22:58 ausyvutims1 mtp-probe: bus: 1, device: 6 was not an MTP device Dec 14 11:22:58 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66221.656020] scsi7 : usb-storage 1-1:1.0 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.661534] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access WD My Passport 0748 1016 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.666466] scsi 7:0:0:1: Enclosure WD SES Device 1016 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.667739] sd 7:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.667913] ses 7:0:0:1: Attached Enclosure device Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.668047] ses 7:0:0:1: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 13 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.678473] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] 1953458176 512-byte logical blocks: (1.00 TB/931 GiB) Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.687700] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.687705] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 47 00 10 08 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.701076] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] No Caching mode page present Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.701081] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.738062] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] No Caching mode page present Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.738068] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.754558] sdc: sdc1 Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.792006] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] No Caching mode page present Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.792012] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 kernel: [66222.792016] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk Dec 14 11:22:59 ausyvutims1 ata_id[16971]: HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed for '/dev/sdc': Invalid argument Thanks for any help offered

  Read the article

• Ubuntu doesn't "see" external USB Hard Disk

  - by Mina Michael

  It's NTFS. It's USB2. I'm using Ubuntu 13.04. It works perfectly fine on Windows (which excludes cable and hardware problems). I have two Ubuntu computers and it's not detected on either. It's about 500 GB. Edits: Following the first link, I input sudo lsusb in a terminal; before and after connecting the HDD. The difference was Bus 001 Device 012: ID 14cd:6116 Super Top M6116 SATA Bridge. There it is! ("sata bridge" used to appear in a windows notification when I plugged in the HDD in!). ...This means that Ubuntu detects it but is it not mounting it? I tried this: sudo mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt But gives this: mount: special device /dev/sdb1 does not exist I also tried: sudo mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt but it stays with no output forever. I left it in background for about 30 min.s. sudo fdisk -l gives out this: Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581808 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xa42d04a3 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 80324 40131 de Dell Utility /dev/sda2 * 80325 102481919 51200797+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 263874558 312580095 24352769 5 Extended /dev/sda4 102481920 263872511 80695296 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda5 263874560 310505471 23315456 83 Linux /dev/sda6 310507520 312580095 1036288 82 Linux swap / Solaris Partition table entries are not in disk order Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x5822aaea Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 2048 976769023 488383488 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT The part below "Partition table entries are not in disk order" takes about 5 minutes to appear. The outputs of ls /dev/ | grep sd before and after connecting the HDD: before: sda sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4 sda5 sda6 ,after: sda sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4 sda5 sda6 sdd sdd1 The second output has the lines sdd and sdd1 different from the first one. IT SHOWED THE FILES!! The command sudo mount /dev/sdd1 /mnt worked after I typed in sudo fdisk -l!!! Thanks a million!! :) :)

  Read the article

• Resize/Create a New Partition in GParted

  - by Charlie

  So I've been having some trouble recently with Ubuntu and decided it was time to switch to windows. But I have no ntfs partitions on my hard disk and GParted will not let me resize my one large partition (/dev/sda1) so that I can allocate some ntfs space to install windows on. Any help would be greatly appreciated, I've had this problem for quite some time now and it had just become one big headache. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How to access files on a USB-connected NTFS disk removed from a Win7 notebook?

  - by yosh m

  My daughter seems to have fried her motherboard in her Lenovo Notebook. The disk seems to be fine. I removed the disk and used a universal disk-to-USB kit to attach it to another computer. The disk is recognized fine and I can peruse it in Windows Explorer. The problem is that the files she would like to recover from it are located in places that Windows refuses to let me access. When I try, for example, to enter the directory "Documents and Settings" it gives me an "Access is denied" error. Same thing when I try to go into the various User directories and other locations. I thought to try creating a Ghost image & retrieve the files from that, but Ghost seems to croak when I try to run it - apparently it doesn't like accessing the disk via a USB connection (even though I've told it to install the drivers for USB). Any other ideas about how to get to the files I need, either through Windows or perhaps some other OS that I could boot from a CD that can read an NTFS disk? Thanks, Yosh

  Read the article

• Can't set permissions for files on an NTFS partition

  - by ashishsony

  I remember that I was able to run a Linux .exe that was placed on an NTFS partition earlier before I installed 10.10 RC. But if I try to run it now, I can't run it as it hasn't the execution permission. The bad part is that I can't change the permissions too. I'm chmod-ding +x but no change at all with its permissions. So this seems to be a bug? Any help? Though when I put it on ext4 partition, I can set the permission. But I want to do this as I did before, right from its default NTFS location.

  Read the article

• Installing windows after ubuntu is installed (need to create ntfs partition too)

  - by Brent Roose

  I prefer Ubuntu to work on, but for some applications for school, I need windows. I've done some research and have a few problems: I only have one hard drive which is formatted as ext4, not ntfs. Many people say I have to use Gparted to create an ntfs partition to install windows on, the only problem is that I need to unmount my drive to do this, which isn't possible I think because I only have one. I thought about mounting my HDD as a slave on a windows laptop but I don't manage to partition it with windows partition manager, so I think I need some kind of tool. which one? next problem I'll probably have is that I won't be able to boot ubuntu after installing windows because grub will be removed from my MBR. are there any good guides around here? I've used some kind of tool before, but it crashed my whole HDD so I had to fully format it.

  Read the article

• Partition table is corrupt

  - by Tim

  I have a corrupt the partition table on the laptop that is running Ubunutu 10.4. Before the partition table was corrupt I had the following partitions: 2 primary partitions: 1st - NTFS 2nd - Extended 4 logical partitons that are built within 2nd extended: 1st NTFS (68 Gib) 2nd Linux (19 Gib) 3rd Swap (1.4 Gib) 4th Linux (24 Gib) The physical order of these partitions was the following: ( 4th Linux ) - ( 1st NTFS ) - ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) The logical order of the partition was different: ( 1st NTFS ) - ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) ( 4th Linux ) NTFS partition was big and it resided between 2 Linux partitions, neither of these partitions had enough space to install Oracle 11g for my project with prof. Gamper and Markus Innerebner. Therefore, I decided to a) either move the NTFS partion to the left or b) remove it completely and extend partition where Linux resides. As I tool I have chosen GParted. But unfortunately it was not able to move the partition because he found that in NTFS partition there are some blocks that are referenced multiple times. Also it was not able to remove the partition neither, because in this case the partitions that follow it ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) have to be in his opinion also removed, because the organization of extended partition is a linked list. Since GParted was not able to do such thing I was trying to find another tool. I found diskdrake tool on PSLinuxOS distribution of linux. That tool silently deleted ( 1st NTFS ) partition and I thought that everything was fine. But diskdrake has damaged the partition in a way that I am not able either to boot from the hard disk nor to see the partitions with GParted and even with diskdrake itself! Fortunately I have a live CD of Ubuntu 8.10 and I am able to boot and see hard disk. I have 2 ideas how I can solve the problem: 1) Manually change disk partitions and point them to the correct partitions. 2) Create partition table with GParted that as much as possible is the same with the previous one I find the 2nd approach less time consuming but some data will be lost because of it is not possible to place borders of the partitions exactly how it was before. And moreover I am not sure if such approach would work, for example, if the OS is able to locate files after repartitioning. I feel like that it will but not 100% sure. Are there some ideas how the problem may be solved?

  Read the article

• Does BitLocker reduce write reliability?

  - by Unsigned

  For the purposes of this question, BitLocker refers to the BitLocker-to-go variety on a disk with write-caching disabled. NTFS supports metadata journaling, which, although not completely failsafe, does mitigate certain types of potential filesystem errors. Assuming an NTFS volume is protected with BitLocker, does this reduce the failure tolerance? Would a power failure during a write to an NTFS volume, that's protected with BitLocker, be more prone to corruption than on an unencrypted NTFS volume?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >