tomas composed on 2024-01-14 19:15 (UTC+0100):
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 12:33:39PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> gene heskett composed on 2024-01-14 12:04 (UTC-0500):
>> > # first put it where it is now & reboot
>> > #LABEL=homesde1 /mnt/homesde1 ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 2
>> ...
>> > I have not been able to use that last line as a target for rsync
>> That's not unexpected. /mnt/ is intended for /temporary/ or /transient/
>> mounting,
>> while /etc/fstab is OTOH intended for routine.
> How should the mount point have an influence on transfer rates?
AFAIK, nothing I wrote would be expected to have any relationship to transfer
rates. My point was entirely about suitability of /mnt/ for fstab entries.
>> The explosion could have occurred
>> by inserting a USB stick while rsync was running and you were engaging in
>> root
>> activities. As regular user, most DEs now use /run/media/<user> instead of
>> /tmp/.
>> Best anyway to find someplace besides your /mnt/ tree for that filesystem,
>> maybe
>> /home/coyotebak/ or /backupdisk/.
> You think an automounter mounted some stuff beneath /mnt/?
> I think they don't do that for the last twenty years, at least
> (before /run/media/<user> it has been /media/<user> for quite
> a while already...
I don't have a working knowledge of all the deviations from FHS or other
standards
that Gene employs, and neither am I familiar with behaviors of DEs I do not use.
When one has /mnt/ in fstab, where would one put a transient manual mount?
Another
would need to be created, lest done to /mnt/ on coyote, /mnt/homesde1/'s
filesystem would disappear, no trivial danger in the context of deteriorated
short
term memory.
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata
