Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a GPT NTFS volume that I have targeted by iSCSI. I need it to be a drive on my Windows machine AND access the information simultaneously in Linux. Is this possible? I can do some kind of roundabout setup and just install an initiator in Linux and mount it that way, but changes to files don't seem to show to the opposite machines unless I unmount then mount. Also, every time I would mount the file system it says the disk contains an unclean file system and it's going to clean it, because Windows didn't shut it down safetly. Chkdsk finds nothing wrong.

share|improve this question
1  
Basically your problem is cache coherency: both Windows and Linux assume that they are the only users of a drive, and that any data read from the drive cached in memory hasn't changed elsewhere. –  pjc50 Feb 22 '12 at 17:00
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Not unless they both mount it read only. If you want to share, then you will need to use a file sharing protocol such as SMB/CIFS or NFS.

share|improve this answer
    
No can do. I need read/write access to it while my Windows machine is off, so that leaves out any kind of network sharing protocol. Why won't doing a localhost initiator work? Are targets only meant to be used by one initiator at a time? –  timramich Feb 22 '12 at 16:08
3  
@timramich, one system suddenly modifying the fs while the other has it open is a sure fire way to hopelessly corrupt the fs. –  psusi Feb 22 '12 at 16:14
1  
+1, Block level devices aren't designed to be shared. –  Aaron Copley Feb 23 '12 at 18:17
add comment

Well, I switched away from iSCSI and mounted the volume. Writes are PAINFULLY slow, so I switched back to iSCSI. Now I need to find a way to share the volume from the Windows machine to the Linux machine. I can't seem to make "everyone" denied while keeping an account for full privileges. The "everyone" privileges overwrite the rest.

share|improve this answer
    
Won't every one be implicitly denied if you only define full privileges for your desired user? The problem you are encountering is an example of the least permissive model. UserX is denied because he also falls under "everyone." –  Aaron Copley Feb 23 '12 at 18:24
    
Answers are for answers, not additional commentary. Please edit the original question to add more information, and start a new question to as a different question. –  psusi Feb 24 '12 at 14:05
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.