Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <112501c11495$3f97f350$b66416ac@spimageworks.com> From: "Bruce Dobrin" To: References: <10ff01c11487$4de52d50$b66416ac AT spimageworks DOT com> <07910EFBA642624E8C6E7DA72616655C1D5E9C AT xch-nw-15 DOT nw DOT nos DOT boeing DOT com> <10ff01c11487$4de52d50$b66416ac AT spimageworks DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010724180742 DOT 02362828 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Subject: Re: Mount //./cdrom0 problem Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:06:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Thank you for the pointer to WinObj. (It also explained much which was previously cryptic in the way the two os's handle devices and Net volumes as well as the afore mentioned cdrom0 question). I had been worried that mounting the link to the drive letter, might have bypassed blocks accessible by the block device link (as is the case with physicaldisk0 and the drive letter). I see now that this is not the case with the CDROM. Thanks again B. Dobrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" To: "Corinna Vinschen" ; Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:10 PM Subject: Re: Mount //./cdrom0 problem > At 05:57 PM 7/24/2001, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 02:26:29PM -0700, Bruce Dobrin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I've been backing up cd images by mounting them as block devices and using > > > dd to dump the image to a file (all on win2k). I just tryiied this on my > > > NT4 machine and found that : " mount -f -b //./cdrom0 /dev/cda " > > > doesn't seem to work on NT (but works fine on win2k). I get an error that > > > /dev/cda is not a recognized file or directory. Is the Block Device name > > > for the cdrom on NT different than the name on Win2k? (I tried //./cd-rom0 > > > too, to no effect). Has anyone else had success with mounting the CD-rom > > > Bolck device on NT? > > > >You can access the cd-rom on both, NT4 and W2K, using the drive letter: > > > > mount -f -b //./F: /dev/cda > > > >Corinna > > > > Quite true. The problem you're having Bruce is that you rely on symbolic > names defined in the O/S. cdrom0 exists in W2K but not in NT. If your > interested to see the differences in this area between W2K and NT, I > recommend WinObj which you can get at www.sysinternals.com. > > > > Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com > RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com > 118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office > Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX > > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/