Re: Read-only folder
Hactar
John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> I have a folder in WinXP, on the secondary hard drive, which is
> sometimes accessed over the network, via Samba, from a Ubuntu machine.
>
> Lately, as in the past few days, it's started wanting to be read-only.
> From the Windows point of view, the "Read only" attribute is checked
> but grey; unchecking it is possible, but it reverts. "Sharing" and
> "allow network users to change my files" are both checked. Ditto for
> its parent folder, and that folder's parent (the disk drive).
When XP gets enough DMA errors, it disables DMA for that controller and
operates in PIO mode. You have to reboot to get DMA back I think.
That's a roundabout way of showing that when something fails, Windows
falls back to a way of accessing that _doesn't_ cause the error. Someone
mentioned that you may have a filesystem error, and that's why Windows
made the volume read-only. Is there any part of the affected volume
that's writeable?
> From the Linux point of view:
>
> $ ls -ld
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 2009-11-02 01:17 .
> $
Where is the disk really? Whether it's really NTFS or extN, the server
maps OS_A_native_filesystem -> VFS (or whatever Samba uses) and the
client maps VFS (...) -> OS_B_native_filesystem. Either mapping can be
lossy. To me an unnatural appearance only serves as an indicator that
something's wrong, and not a very reliable one at that.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of
being called an idea at all. -Oscar Wilde
huey.c...@gmail.com
> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> > I have a folder in WinXP, on the secondary hard drive, which is
> > sometimes accessed over the network, via Samba, from a Ubuntu
> > machine.
> >
> > Lately, as in the past few days, it's started wanting to be
> > read-only. From the Windows point of view, the "Read only" attribute
> > is checked but grey; unchecking it is possible, but it reverts.
> > "Sharing" and "allow network users to change my files" are both
> > checked. Ditto for its parent folder, and that folder's parent (the
> > disk drive).
>
> When XP gets enough DMA errors, it disables DMA for that controller
> and operates in PIO mode. You have to reboot to get DMA back I think.
> That's a roundabout way of showing that when something fails, Windows
> falls back to a way of accessing that _doesn't_ cause the error.
Y'know, now that you mention it, I've experienced this.
I stand by my earlier answer: Reboot it.
> Someone mentioned that you may have a filesystem error, and that's why
> Windows made the volume read-only. Is there any part of the affected
> volume that's writeable?
Ja, chkdsking that volume probably not a bad idea too. Also, if you can
poll the SMART hard drive information, there might be clues in there as
well.
--
Huey
John Hatpin
> In article <56l8f5lpv3v0mvssl...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> > I have a folder in WinXP, on the secondary hard drive, which is
> > sometimes accessed over the network, via Samba, from a Ubuntu machine.
> >
> > Lately, as in the past few days, it's started wanting to be read-only.
> > From the Windows point of view, the "Read only" attribute is checked
> > but grey; unchecking it is possible, but it reverts. "Sharing" and
> > "allow network users to change my files" are both checked. Ditto for
> > its parent folder, and that folder's parent (the disk drive).
>
> When XP gets enough DMA errors, it disables DMA for that controller and
> operates in PIO mode. You have to reboot to get DMA back I think.
> That's a roundabout way of showing that when something fails, Windows
> falls back to a way of accessing that _doesn't_ cause the error. Someone
> mentioned that you may have a filesystem error, and that's why Windows
> made the volume read-only.
Hmm. I've run the Windows error-checking thing (the one on the Tools
tab of Properties), and it reports no errors. For what that's worth.
>Is there any part of the affected volume that's writeable?
Doesn't seem to be. Any folder I check has read-only set, always
grey.
From the Linux POV:
$ find . -type d -writable 2>/dev/null
$
(redirecting standard error because it complains about files with
8-bit characters (accented letters) in their filenames)
> > From the Linux point of view:
> >
> > $ ls -ld
> > drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 2009-11-02 01:17 .
> > $
>
> Where is the disk really? Whether it's really NTFS or extN, the server
> maps OS_A_native_filesystem -> VFS (or whatever Samba uses) and the
> client maps VFS (...) -> OS_B_native_filesystem. Either mapping can be
> lossy. To me an unnatural appearance only serves as an indicator that
> something's wrong, and not a very reliable one at that.
It's on WinXP, on the secondary internal drive (mounted on E:), which
is formatted NTFS.
There's a strong possibility that this is a bug in Samba. Googling
around, I see several complaints that Ubuntu 9.10 ("Karmic Koala")
breaks Samba, but none of them are close enough to this problem to be
more than highly suspicious.
--
John Hatpin
http://uninformedcomment.wordpress.com/
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
1. The same thing is happening on folders on an external HDD
connected via USB to the Ubuntu machine. This tends to rule out
Samba.
2. Ubuntu is reporting that the main HDD is failing. For me, that
can explain any errant behaviour, including this.
Damn, the drive's only a few months old. It should still be under
warranty (I hope!), but it's still a pain. I'd better inform the
authorities (L) that the server will be down for a few days next week.
Thanks to all for your help.
Patrick M Geahan
> 2. Ubuntu is reporting that the main HDD is failing. For me, that
> can explain any errant behaviour, including this.
Did you just upgrade to 9.10, by chance? The new 'predict drive
failure' thing has thrown up an "IMMINENT FAILURE" warning on
every single drive I've thrown at it, regardless of age or usage.
I'm inclined not to put a lot of stock in it.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
landotter
wrote:
> John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailandthistoo.com> wrote:
> > 2. Ubuntu is reporting that the main HDD is failing. For me, that
> > can explain any errant behaviour, including this.
>
> Did you just upgrade to 9.10, by chance? The new 'predict drive
> failure' thing has thrown up an "IMMINENT FAILURE" warning on
> every single drive I've thrown at it, regardless of age or usage.
> I'm inclined not to put a lot of stock in it.
Disk Utility claims my ancient 20g disk with / mounted on it only has
"a few bad sectors". By comparison--I guess that means it's golden.
John Hatpin
> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailandthistoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2. Ubuntu is reporting that the main HDD is failing. For me, that
> > can explain any errant behaviour, including this.
>
> Did you just upgrade to 9.10, by chance?
Yes, and that warning first appeared as soon as the upgrade was done.
>The new 'predict drive
> failure' thing has thrown up an "IMMINENT FAILURE" warning on
> every single drive I've thrown at it, regardless of age or usage.
> I'm inclined not to put a lot of stock in it.
<exasperated redundant question>
What on earth are they playing at?
</erq>
Sano
news:nvkgs6-...@home.thepatcave.org:
> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailandthistoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 2. Ubuntu is reporting that the main HDD is failing. For me,
>> that can explain any errant behaviour, including this.
>
> Did you just upgrade to 9.10, by chance? The new 'predict drive
> failure' thing has thrown up an "IMMINENT FAILURE" warning on
> every single drive I've thrown at it, regardless of age or
> usage. I'm inclined not to put a lot of stock in it.
>
Hmm:
Subject: Bad sectors after update
Message-ID: <hd44m1$5ht$1...@localhost.localdomain>
in the Ubuntu ng => same things.
John Hatpin
Thanks. I'll follow that thread over there.
Sano
news:ublbf5td3brpq13fe...@4ax.com:
YW.
FWIW I have 9.10 on a few year old 160GB hdd w/ a couple of other
hdds installed. P4, 2.8Ghz HT, 512MB (1 stick) Intel board. No
faults kicked out on anything. I have run no disk utilities at
all. The install is just basic, right off the cd. Not online with
it yet, either.
Sano
news:ublbf5td3brpq13fe...@4ax.com:
> Sano wrote:
In another ng, someone is, out of the blue, having issues with 3
different Seagate hdds and Vista/ Windows7. Fairly seasoned
poster.
Just some chat in 24hour:
Subject: Win 7 vs Seagate ?
Message-ID: <JfadndmMUsHc5GjX...@ntd.net>