Confused over CIFS

[Ted Hilts]

Preston Kutzner wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Ted Hilts wrote:
>
>> Preston
>>
>> You seem to have grasped most of what I said.
>>
>> Once I get a universal backup set up which includes "backuppc" working I
>> will probably replace the NTFS disk which we have been talking about
>> (because it will be full) with a new one formatted as ext3. Several
>> months ago I was told by someone on the list that I had to install a
>> Windows version of ext3 on all the XP machines -- maybe I misunderstood
>> them.  You seem to be saying that all I have to do is map the XP
>> machines to the Ubuntu share and SMB will look after everything else.
>> They are already so mapped.  So that only leaves the issue of rsync.  I
>> allready read that URL article on rsync.  I have a print out "How to
>> regularly backup Windows XP to Ubuntu, using rsync".  There are a lot of
>> configuration steps.  Aside from that my worry is not the transfer
>> process of rsync but rather this is not so much a backup transfer of
>> data but an archive which gets put into physical place just once (and
>> added to) so it can be referenced and used from one single place.  Every
>> machine collecting data has its own local system repository which I
>> destroy after a successful transfer of the data over to the "Ubuntu"
>> location.  The scrapbook application has a export function that allows
>> me to move data directly from the XP Pro machine (also Linux machines
>> using same application) over to the mapped Ubuntu machine. HOWEVER (I'm
>> not yelling) the XP Home machine called "misty" cannot make the export
>> happen because it is XP Home and not XP Pro.  This "misty" machine
>> cannot see the Ubuntu shares for the common workgroup. That's what led
>> to this whole discussion.  I tried to get help from the list as well as
>> commercial help but no one seems to understand the irregularity that is
>> occuring.  Oddly enough I do have one XP Home machine called "cic2ext"
>> that does not have this irregularity (it's much older) and it can see
>> and access the Ubuntu share on the NTFS disk we have been talking
>> about.  The XP Home machine "misty" has all the MS updates and Service
>> Packs installed but this is not the case with the "cic2ext" machine.
>> That's why I do not update "cic2ext" because I think the problem is
>> inherent in the MS update.  BTW the dual boot XP Home / Ubuntu machine
>> came into existence because that XP Home machine showed the same
>> irregularity as "misty".  So that's the reason I dont' use it and
>> thought I would try Ubuntu on that machine. Also, the name of the XP
>> Home machine dual booted with "Ubuntu" has the name "back-up" because it
>> was supposed to be the final repository not "Ubuntu".  But "Ubuntu" won
>> out as the dominant computing entity because I could not get "back-up"
>> to see the other machines in the LAN.  The problem with "back-up" is the
>> exact same problem as with "misty"  -- they are both XP Home based and
>> inherit this irregularity as I call it.
>
> Alright, if I understand this, you have your worker machines map 
> share(s) that "Ubuntu" is offering on the network as local drives.  
> Each worker machine, when it's done with its task, takes its data and 
> copies it to the mapped shares.  This is working fine for all of your 
> XP Pro machines, but your XP Home machine, "misty", can't see the 
> shares offered by "Ubuntu".  Therefore, you're looking for a way to 
> efficiently transfer the data from "misty" to Ubuntu for storage 
> (which is currently stalling).  Periodically, you're looking to take 
> what's on "Ubuntu" and back it up to some other media for archival 
> purposes.
>
> Well, unfortunately, if this is truly how your set-up is configured, 
> you don't have too many options.  Windows only recognizes cifs / smb 
> shares natively.  So, you can't really export your shares from 
> "Ubuntu" any other way.  You can possibly export your shares using 
> NFS, but I don't know if this works well with NTFS or not.  Here's 
> where you can get more information on an NFS client for Windows: 
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324055
>
> Depending on how you're doing your housekeeping on the "Ubuntu" box, 
> you still could use rsync.  Rsync does have a switch "-W" in linux, at 
> least which tells rsync to not use its normal rsync algorithm, but 
> instead just copy the whole file.  It would still make use of the 
> compression, though.
>
> You'd set-up rsync to run in daemon mode on "Ubuntu" (rsyncd), edit 
> the /etc/rsyncd.conf file to taste (more information by typing 'man 5 
> rsyncd.conf' at the command-line) and then using the windows rsync 
> client to copy files to the "Ubuntu" box.  Actual command (with 
> switches and everything) would depend on your Windows implementation 
> of rsync.  But, I would suggest perusing whatever included 
> documentation came with it.
>
Well, unfortunately, if this is truly how your set-up is configured, you 
don't have too many options.  Windows only recognizes cifs / smb shares 
natively.  So, you can't really export your shares from "Ubuntu" any 
other way.  You can possibly export your shares using NFS, but I don't 
know if this works well with NTFS or not.  Here's where you can get more 
information on an NFS client for Windows: 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324055

Working backwards here as I think we use some terms differently.  The 
purpose of  "Ubuntu" is to acquire in one single place (/media/sdg1 
which is a "Ubuntu" share and currently a NTFS disk in the local system 
associated with "Ubuntu".  The main idea is to store in one place the 
data collected by other machines in the LAN (both XP and Linux machines 
all using the same application to acquire different portions of data). 
So this is not a "backup" as the word is normally used and is why I call 
it an archive because once the data is placed in this single physical 
location it is never altered in any way and is used mostly by Ubuntu but 
can be accessed by any of the machines.  Yes, I think you understand the 
purpose of these other machines is to temporarily store their data 
collection on their own machines and at various convenient times move 
this data (export it) over to the central repository or archive located 
on "Ubuntu"  after which their temporary data is destroyed. Also,  
"Ubuntu" can easily access this data from the central location. But any 
of the machines can do the same and this means that if one of the 
machines is hosting an Apache web server that web server can make this 
data available over the Internet. 

I like that "-w" option because it addresses my main concern of "do not 
tamper with the data in the central repository I call an archive" 
located on the machine "Ubuntu".

So, I think your previous idea still stands: That is the use of rsync on 
"Ubuntu" should suffice the purpose of these data transfers.

Now, when it comes to real backup operations that's another kettle of 
fish that I have to work on.  I don't know if the "Ubuntu" central 
repository or archive can co-exist with normal types of backup 
operations such as those that "backuppc" would  engage in. If it cannot 
then it simply gets left out of the overall backup scheme and is 
separately handled.  This backup scheme I want to set up (this other 
kettle of fish) has to backup all machines both Windows and Linux 
machines so they can be easily and quikly restored on the same disk or 
on a new disk or on a bigger disk.  So far I have one concern when using 
"dd" to build an image of a partition or of a whole disk. Will it work 
the same on Windows machines as it does on Linux machines and also I 
read somewhere that "dd" won't automatically rebuild partitions when 
doing a restore.  Maybe I misunderstood what I was reading but it seemed 
that the idea was when restoring a disk to first manually build the 
partitions and file system and then using "dd" apply the data in the 
file created by "dd" for restoration.  So I am really confused on this 
issue.

Thanks, Ted