Search Results

Search found 61 results on 3 pages for 'sshfs'.

Page 2/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

• freeFTPd and scp/sshfs

  - by singpolyma

  When I connect to freeFTPd using the CLI 'sftp' client from my Ubuntu system, it works find. Unfortunately, that client sucks at downloading whole directory trees. So I tried to use scp and I get "exec request failed on channel 0" So I tried sshfs. I can browse the directory structure, but it lists the files and says they do not exist. The freeFTPd server logs have no useful information.

  Read the article

• serving static assets via http is really slow compared to sshfs (apache2/nginx)

  - by s1lv3r

  After migrating to a new VPS I had some users complaining about slow loading images on their sites. After creating some test files with dd I realized that I can download all files via sshfs with full speed while downloads via web are painfully slow. The larger the file is and the longer the transfer takes, the slower the transfer speed gets. I thought I had some problems with Apache and just spend the whole evening with replacing Apache2 against nginx for static file serving - with no effect at all. No I/O wait states in top. Tons of RAM free, no high CPU utilization and hdparm shows a decent I/O performance at all times. I just have no idea anymore, what's happening on this server. This is a link to a demo file: http://master.dealux.de/file.tgz Anybody an idea what I can check out?

  Read the article

• SVN client too old after I used sshfs

  - by johnlai2004

  I have a svn checked out web application on a shared hosting linux server. The linux server has an svn client that I can access via ssh. From my localhost, I did the following > sshfs [email protected]:webappdir/ /media/webapp > cd /media/webapp > svn update svn: Working copy '.' locked svn: run 'svn cleanup' to remove locks (type 'svn help cleanup' for details) > svn clean up It's been 15 minutes and the svn clean up still isn't finished. I think it may have froze. So then I did the following: > ssh [email protected] > cd webappdir > svn update svn: This client is too old to work with working copy '.'; please get a newer Subversion client So now I can't update my webappdir because my /media/webapp is stuck on svn clean up, and my shared hosting server's svn client is out of date. I don't have privileges to install a new svn client on the shared hosting server. How do I get my svn update to work?

  Read the article

• Weird .#filename files on remote ssh-connected systems after mcedit

  - by etranger

  I'm using MacFusion sshfs in combination with Midnight Commander, and when I edit remote text files with mcedit, weird symlinks are created on the remote system. $ ls -l .* lrwxr-xr-x 1 user group 34 Jun 27 01:54 .#filename.txt -> [email protected] where etranger is my local login name, and mbp is a hostname of my notebook running MacOS. symlinks can be removed by running remote rm command, but cannot be deleted on the mac-fuse mounted volume and thus pollutes the filesystem. I cannot figure what part of software is responsible for this, and how I could fix this, any help is appreciated. EDIT: This appears to be mcedit behavior as documented here: https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/8245 Apparently, sshfs fails to remove symlink to the lock file for some reason (".#" in filename, perhaps), and it pollutes the filesystem. A quick workaround is possible, using another bug of Midnight Commander: editing (F4) the broken symlink effectively converts it to a missing lock file it was supposed to point to, and removes the symlink itself. The newly created file may then be deleted normally. EDIT 2: Unchecking "Follow symlink" in MacFusion apparently allows sshfs to remove dead symlinks, so the problem disappears completely.

  Read the article

• Automatically mount a remote folder on boot

  - by Andrew

  I'm trying to mount a Windows folder on my Ubuntu machine on start up. I've tried following this page here, modifying /etc/fstab and appending sshfs#my_user@remote_host:/path/to/directory <local_mount_point> fuse user 0 0 to it, but it fails; on start up, I get an error saying that the mounting failed, and I can press S to skip or M to recover manually. I also tried following this page here, appending /usr/bin/sshfs -o idmap=user my_user@remote_host:/path/to/directory <local_mount_point> to the /etc/rc.local file, but this doesn't help either; Ubuntu just boots up normally without mounting. I have Cygwin installed on my Windows machine, and I can run everything smoothly, such as sshing without passwords, and mounting it manually. I've also tried to run the modified rc.local file $ /etc/rc.local, and it works perfectly, but I just can't seem to get the folder mounted on start up. Can someone help me?

  Read the article

• ssh asks for password despite ssh-copy-id

  - by Aliud Alius

  I've been using public key authentication on a remote server for some time now for remote shell use as well as for sshfs mounts. After forcing a umount of my sshfs directory, I noticed that ssh began to prompt me for a password. I tried purging the remote .ssh/authorized_keys from any mention the local machine, and I cleaned the local machine from references to the remote machine. I then repeated my ssh-copy-id, it prompted me for a password, and returned normally. But lo and behold, when I ssh to the remote server I am still prompted for a password. I'm a little confused as to what the issue could be, any suggestions?

  Read the article

• What is the potential for a FUSE mount to destabilize a Linux server?

  - by 200_success

  I'm a sysadmin for a multi-user server, where students in our department have shell accounts. One of our users has requested that we install sshfs on it. I'm debating whether it would be wise to install sshfs as suggested. My main concern is whether a FUSE mount could make our server less reliable. In my experience, bad things can happen to servers when an NFS server suddenly becomes unavailable — the load average shoots up, and you might not be able to unmount it cleanly, to the point where a hard reboot might be necessary. If a FUSE-mounted server suddenly disappears, how hard might it be to clean up the mess? Are there any other likely catastrophes or gotchas I should consider? At least with NFS, only root can mount, and we can choose to mount NFS servers that we consider to be reasonably reliable. Let's assume that our users have no hostile intentions, but might do stupid things accidentally. Also, I'm not really worried about the contents of the filesystems they might mount, since our users already have shell access and can copy anything they want to their home directory.

  Read the article

• After mounting using sshfs I cannot commit my changes using subversion

  - by robUK

  Hello, local machine: Fedora 13 Subversion: 1.6.9 remote machine: CentSO 5.3 subversion 1.4.2 I have a project which is on the remote machine: [email protected]:projects/ssd1 I have mounted this on my local machine: sshfs [email protected]:projects/ssd1 /home/jbloggs/projects/mnt/ssd1 Everything mounts ok. So I open my project using GNU Emacs 23.2.1. When I want to comment my changes in emacs I get the following error: can't move /home/jbloggs/projects/mnt/ssd1/.svn/tmp/entries to /home/jbloggs/mnt/ssd1/.svn/entries: Operation not permitted Does anyone know of any way I can resolve this issue? many thanks for any advice,

  Read the article

• Mount network drives over ssh on Windows

  - by petersohn

  There is a remote filesystem I can reach through ssh. On Linux, there are several ways of dealing with it. I like sshfs, because with it I can work with the remote files the same way as with my local files. Is there any similar to Windows, that can map a network drive through ssh? The best I can use is WinSCP, which is good, but not good enough.

  Read the article

• Permissions issues with mounting remote server into a specific folder

  - by Patrick

  I'm doing the following to mount a remote server to a specific path on my server: sshfs [email protected]:/backup/folder/ /home/myuser/server-backups/ However when I mount the server the folder permissions change (they become 700), and when I test my rsnapshot.conf file I get the following error: snapshot_root /home/myuser/server-backups/ - snapshot_root exists \ but is not readable What am I doing wrong ? should I mount the remote server with another user ?

  Read the article

• /dev/fuse "permission denied" even when member of fuse group

  - by steeef

  I have a backup script scheduled on a Debian 5.0 x86 server, via sshfs. However, when I attempt to mount the remote directory, I receive: failed to open /dev/fuse: Permission denied ls -l /dev/fuse returns: crwxrwxr-x 1 root fuse 10, 229 2010-11-12 09:08 /dev/fuse id backup returns: uid=501(backup) gid=501(backup) groups=501(backup),46(plugdev),108(fuse) The only way I can get the directory to mount is if I run chmod a+w /dev/fuse, but this is reset at some point during the day. It's a kludge though, and I'd rather figure out why the group permissions aren't working.

  Read the article

• How to get full control of umask/PAM/permissions?

  - by plua

  OUR SITUATION Several people from our company log in to a server and upload files. They all need to be able to upload and overwrite the same files. They have different usernames, but are all part of the same group. However, this is an internet server, so the "other" users should have (in general) just read-only access. So what I want to have is these standard permissions: files: 664 directories: 771 My goal is that all users do not need to worry about permissions. The server should be configured in such a way that these permissions apply to all files and directories, newly created, copied, or over-written. Only when we need some special permissions we'd manually change this. We upload files to the server by SFTP-ing in Nautilus, by mounting the server using sshfs and accessing it in Nautilus as if it were a local folder, and by SCP-ing in the command line. That basically covers our situation and what we aim to do. Now, I have read many things about the beautiful umask functionality. From what I understand umask (together with PAM) should allow me to do exactly what I want: set standard permissions for new files and directories. However, after many many hours of reading and trial-and-error, I still do not get this to work. I get many unexpected results. I really like to get a solid grasp of umask and have many question unanswered. I will post these questions below, together with my findings and an explanation of my trials that led to these questions. Given that many things appear to go wrong, I think that I am doing several things wrong. So therefore, there are many questions. NOTE: I am using Ubuntu 9.10 and therefore can not change the sshd_config to set the umask for the SFTP server. Installed SSH OpenSSH_5.1p1 Debian-6ubuntu2 < required OpenSSH 5.4p1. So here go the questions. 1. DO I NEED TO RESTART FOR PAM CHANGS TO TAKE EFFECT? Let's start with this. There were so many files involved and I was unable to figure out what does and what does not affect things, also because I did not know whether or not I have to restart the whole system for PAM changes to take effect. I did do so after not seeing the expected results, but is this really necessary? Or can I just log out from the server and log back in, and should new PAM policies be effective? Or is there some 'PAM' program to reload? 2. IS THERE ONE SINGLE FILE TO CHANGE THAT AFFECTS ALL USERS FOR ALL SESSIONS? So I ended up changing MANY files, as I read MANY different things. I ended up setting the umask in the following files: ~/.profile -> umask=0002 ~/.bashrc -> umask=0002 /etc/profile -> umask=0002 /etc/pam.d/common-session -> umask=0002 /etc/pam.d/sshd -> umask=0002 /etc/pam.d/login -> umask=0002 I want this change to apply to all users, so some sort of system-wide change would be best. Can it be achieved? 3. AFTER ALL, THIS UMASK THING, DOES IT WORK? So after changing umask to 0002 at every possible place, I run tests. ------------SCP----------- TEST 1: scp testfile (which has 777 permissions for testing purposes) server:/home/ testfile 100% 4 0.0KB/s 00:00 Let's check permissions: user@server:/home$ ls -l total 4 -rwx--x--x 1 user uploaders 4 2011-02-05 17:59 testfile (711) ---------SSH------------ TEST 2: ssh server user@server:/home$ touch anotherfile user@server:/home$ ls -l total 4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 user uploaders 0 2011-02-05 18:03 anotherfile (664) --------SFTP----------- Nautilus: sftp://server/home/ Copy and paste newfile from client to server (777 on client) TEST 3: user@server:/home$ ls -l total 4 -rwxrwxrwx 1 user uploaders 3 2011-02-05 18:05 newfile (777) Create a new file through Nautilus. Check file permissions in terminal: TEST 4: user@server:/home$ ls -l total 4 -rw------- 1 user uploaders 0 2011-02-05 18:06 newfile (600) I mean... WHAT just happened here?! We should get 644 every single time. Instead I get 711, 777, 600, and then once 644. And the 644 is only achieved when creating a new, blank file through SSH, which is the least probable scenario. So I am asking, does umask/pam work after all? 4. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO UMASK SSHFS? Sometimes we mount a server locally, using sshfs. Very useful. But again, we have permissions issues. Here is how we mount: sshfs -o idmap=user -o umask=0113 user@server:/home/ /mnt NOTE: we use umask = 113 because apparently, sshfs starts from 777 instead of 666, so with 113 we get 664 which is the desired file permission. But what now happens is that we see all files and directories as if they are 664. We browse in Nautilus to /mnt and: Right click - New File (newfile) --- TEST 5 Right click - New Folder (newfolder) --- TEST 6 Copy and paste a 777 file from our local client --- TEST 7 So let's check on the command line: user@client:/mnt$ ls -l total 8 -rw-rw-r-- 1 user 1007 3 Feb 5 18:05 copyfile (664) -rw-rw-r-- 1 user 1007 0 Feb 5 18:15 newfile (664) drw-rw-r-- 1 user 1007 4096 Feb 5 18:15 newfolder (664) But hey, let's check this same folder on the server-side: user@server:/home$ ls -l total 8 -rwxrwxrwx 1 user uploaders 3 2011-02-05 18:05 copyfile (777) -rw------- 1 user uploaders 0 2011-02-05 18:15 newfile (600) drwx--x--x 2 user uploaders 4096 2011-02-05 18:15 newfolder (711) What?! The REAL file permissions are very different from what we see in Nautilus. So does this umask on sshfs just create a 'filter' that shows unreal file permissions? And I tried to open a file from another user but the same group that had real 600 permissions but 644 'fake' permissions, and I could still not read this, so what good is this filter?? 5. UMASK IS ALL ABOUT FILES. BUT WHAT ABOUT DIRECTORIES? From my tests I can see that the umask that is being applied also somehow influences the directory permissions. However, I want my files to be 664 (002) and my directories to be 771 (006). So is it possible to have a different umask for directories? 6. PERHAPS UMASK/PAM IS REALLY COOL, BUT UBUNTU IS JUST BUGGY? On the one hand, I have read topics of people that have had success with PAM/UMASK and Ubuntu. On the other hand, I have found many older and newer bugs regarding umask/PAM/fuse on Ubuntu: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdm/+bug/241198 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fuse/+bug/239792 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pam/+bug/253096 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/549172 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=314796 So I do not know what to believe anymore. Should I just give up? Would ACL solve all my problems? Or do I have again problems using Ubuntu? One word of caution with backups using tar. Red Hat /Centos distributions support acls in the tar program but Ubuntu does not support acls when backing up. This means that all acls will be lost when you create a backup. I am very willing to upgrade to Ubuntu 10.04 if that would solve my problems too, but first I want to understand what is happening.

  Read the article

• Secure filesharing protocol for fileserver

  - by Hugo

  I'm setting up a fileserver, and I want lots of clients to easily access it. Up to now I've always used SSHFS to share between different PCs, but since I'm setting up a single fileserver, I'm looking for other common alternatives. Up to now I've seen: AFS: It seems it has no security, traffic is unencrypted, so it would require an SSH tunnel. If I'm to use SSH, I'd just use SSHFS. NFS: Same as above. Also, setting up the server is not so straighforward, it doesn't seem to be KISS enough - at least not for my liking. SMB: Same as AFS. It also seems not to be too well documented, and technically, seems a bit poor. It also seems the protocol isn't formally standardized. SSHFS has security, but as a downside, requieres every user to have an account on the server - there's no way to make a certain directory PUBLIC either. I don't think it has locking, and isn't very fault-tolerant. Are there any alternatives I've missing?

  Read the article

• Samba permissions on a Debian server with Fedora client

  - by norova

  I have a Debian server sharing files via Samba. I can access the files via Windows with no problems whatsoever, but when I try to mount the share on a Fedora client using the same credentials I am unable to write to any files. I have proper read access, but no write permissions. Here are the settings for the share from my smb.conf: [lampp] path = /opt/lampp writable = yes browsable = yes I have to assume that it is an issue on the Fedora side of things because accessing the share from Windows works fine. I have also tried mounting via SSHFS with no luck; it also will allow me to read files but not write. However, in Windows, using a program called WebDrive I am able to access the files (essentially via SSHFS) with no issues whatsoever. I have tried setting up NFS but not much luck there either; I'd rather just stick with Samba if possible. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• why is rdiff-backup not compatible with encfs ---reverse

  - by user330273

  I'm trying to use encfs with rdiff-backup to ensure that my backups to a remote server are encrypted. The easiest way to do this would be to use encfs --reverse - which means encfs will create a virtual encrypted file system, which I can then backup using rdiff-backup. Except that it doesn't work. Rdiff-backup fails every time with an "input/output error" on the encfs virtual filesystem. It seems I'm not the only one with this problem, but no one has said what the problem is: this person reported the same issue, but was just told to use sshfs instead (see below on that); in this question on serverfault, one of the answers just states that "rdiff-backup seems to have trouble accessing the EncFS-reverse filesystem." There's an open bug report on the Debian bug tracker(bug 731413, I can't post the link) on this bug, but it's been open since December 2013 with no response. Does anyone know what the problem actually is? Is there a workaround? I can't use the two most commonly suggested alternatives - sshfs and then running encfs on that, or using Duplicity - as both require a much higher bandwidth connection than I have access to (Duplicity requires regular full backups).

  Read the article

• Networked filesystem with user level security for linux

  - by Konrads

  Hi, I want to enable file sharing between servers and clients, both linux. I don't want to rely on machine trust like in NFSv4 because client users will have root privileges. What are my options besides SMB (SAMBA)? Does OpenAFS support user level authentication & access? Using mounted WebDAV/ftp/sshfs seems silly for LAN.

  Read the article

• rsync & rdiff backup combination giving erros

  - by Maikel van Leeuwen

  On the server I'm making every day a backup with rdiff-backup like: rdiff-backup /home/ /backup/home Then every week I want to make a rsync backup offside with sshfs like: rsync -avz /home/server/backup/home /backup/server-home/ This is giving me the following errors: Fatal Error: Previous backup to /backup/server-home/. seems to have failed. Rerun rdiff-backup with --check-destination-dir option to revert directory to state before unsuccessful session. Does anybody have a good solution to deal with this errors/situation? *2x edit for typo's

  Read the article

• Root SSH/SFTP Always 777

  - by Fluidbyte

  I have an Ubuntu serve that I'm connecting to via SFTP (and also an SSHFS mount locally). When I move a file to the server via the mount I need it to have permissions set to 777. I've added umask 000 to the .bashrc file at the advice of a friend and it doesn't appear to be working. Basically I'm working completely in a restricted folder and need the root to always leave the permissions open - wether I'm SSH'ed in or moving files to the server.

  Read the article

• Non-expensive way to establish FAST connection between notebook and PC?

  - by java.is.for.desktop

  Hello, everyone! I have a notebook with 100Mbit Ethernet, and often need to transfer gigabytes of data to/from PC. Using "only" 100Mbit (12.5MB/sec) is slow: I get max 10MB/sec, no matter what protocol is used (SSHFS, SMB, ...). Of course, it's the overhead. What kind of alternative and non-expensive hardware would you suggest, which would allow much higher transfer speeds?

  Read the article

• How can I allow a user to stream my videos securely?

  - by John Baber

  I've got a script that records 10 minute videos from a webcam to video1.mp4 video2.mp4 video3.mp4 video4.mp4 Then records over video1 again in rotation. I'd like one user to be able to view these in winamp or itunes by having a playlist with the four of them on repeat. (This is my way of getting around the many hours of figuring out how to actually livestream from a webcam with VLC). I don't see any examples of things like icecast being used for video, and I don't see any mentions of secure streaming. My question is, is there any way to have these videos be seen securely? I can do things like https on my server, but I don't have great access to the user's machine, so just sharing a directory by samba or sshfs isn't much of an option.

  Read the article

• File manager (Nautilus) hangs or is ultra slow when listing contents of ssh/sftp server

  - by NahsiN

  I used to use File -- Connect to server to connect to my remote ssh a lot before 12.04/11.10. But now in a fresh install of 12.04, whenever I try to access the remote files, nautilus either always hangs or is ultra slow (5 mins) in listing the directory contents. Most of the time I have to force quit or xkill. Mounting using SSHFS works fine. The ssh server is fast and it works fine via putty, mc (using fish) and normal terminal. I also installed nautilus in Lubuntu 12.04 (virtualbox) and to my surprise, browsing is fast and smooth. Both versions of nautilus are at 3.4.2 thus I am led to believe the problem might be lying somewhere in Ubuntu 12.04. But I am clueless. All suggestions welcome. I really need to solve this problem.

  Read the article

• Is there any WinSCP equivalent for linux?

  - by MiniQuark

  I love WinSCP for Windows. What are the best equivalent softwares for linux? I tried to use sshfs to mount the remote file system on my local machine, but it is not as user friendly as simply launching a GUI, plus it seems to require root access on the client machine, which is not very convenient. Of course command line tools such as scp are possible, but I am looking for a simple GUI. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Remote file access.

  - by Rob Rob

  Hi, We're needing to provide remote (read/write) access to a number of files on our network to several users (some technical, some non-technical) who will be running Windows. The non technical users will need to be able to access their files in an easy to use manner. From previous experience, we could do this with: (some sort of) VPN SSH and something like Dokan (i've only previously done this on linux with sshfs) WebDav FTP VPN and SSH access are more open that we need at present, so I'm leaning towards webdav, however I only have limited experience of it (setting up an SVN server several years ago), but my understanding is that users can access it through windows explorer. FTP I haven't had much experience of, as I've always used SFTP via ssh - but i'd imagine we could make this work in a similar way to ssh. So my question is - have I missed any obvious candidates for this task, or if webdav is (or isn't) suitable what are the security implications of using it for this (obviously https will be used for the transfers, etc). Thanks, Rob.

  Read the article

• How can I tell whether an interrupted rm -r removed any files?

  - by Jake Petroules

  I installed sshfs a Linux box and then mounted my Mac home directory. In the middle of troubleshooting a configuration issue, I did an ls -l on the mount directory (as normal user), receiving: total 0 d????????? ? ? ? ? ? sl I then ran sudo rm -r on that directory but pressed Ctrl+C to terminate it immediately before it (looks) like the command did anything. I notice no files missing but I want to be sure - is there a way I can somehow inspect the filesystem log on my Mac to see if any files were actually removed?

  Read the article

• Can I mark a folder as mountpoint-only?

  - by Collin

  I have a folder ~/nas which I usually use sshfs to mount a network drive on. Today, I didn't realize the share hadn't been mounted yet, and copied some data into it. It took me a bit to realize that I'd just copied data into my own local drive rather than the network share. Is there some way to mark in the system that this folder is supposed to be a mount point, and to not let anyone copy data into it? I tried the permissions solution here: How to only allow a program to write to a directory if it is mounted?, but if I don't have write access I also can't mount anything to it.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >