linux4noobs

1356 readers

1 users here now

linux4noobs

Noob Friendly, Expert Enabling

Whether you're a seasoned pro or the noobiest of noobs, you've found the right place for Linux support and information. With a dedication to supporting free and open source software, this community aims to ensure Linux fits your needs and works for you. From troubleshooting to tutorials, practical tips, news and more, all aspects of Linux are warmly welcomed. Join a community of like-minded enthusiasts and professionals driving Linux's ongoing evolution.

Seeking Support?

Mention your Linux distro and relevant system details.
Describe what you've tried so far.
Share your solution even if you found it yourself.
Do not delete your post. This allows other people to see possible solutions if they have a similar problem.
Properly format any scripts, code, logs, or error messages.
Be mindful to omit any sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, IP addresses, etc.

Community Rules

Keep discussions respectful and amiable. This community is a space where individuals may freely inquire, exchange thoughts, express viewpoints, and extend help without encountering belittlement. We were all a noob at one point. Differing opinions and ideas is a normal part of discourse, but it must remain civil. Offenders will be warned and/or removed.
Posts must be Linux oriented
Spam or affiliate links will not be tolerated.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Mounting Folders VS Symlinks? (lemmy.today)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have a NTFS drive for Storage, which is shared between WIn 11.

I want to change the location of (or replace) ~/Downloads, ~/Music, etc..,.

Note that the link to made is between NTFS and EXT4.

I found two ways while searching.

   1.Creating **Symlinks** in `~` with target pointed to folders in NTFS drive.

   2. **Mounting** the NTFS folders **directly** to`~/Downloads`, `~/Music`, etc..,.

Which one should I do? Which one is more beneficial?

Also how to mount folders to other folders (option 2) ? (I would really appreciate a GUI way)

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You usually should go with the symlinks for a normal usage. There're marginal use cases where you mount a folder, like modifying permissions, attributes, with not straight to learn tools like bindfs.

You mount a filesystem (container), whereas a folder is something contained in a filesystem (IOW, not a filesystem)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank You.

IOW

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

In Other Words

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

(Personal preference) I would symlink them as subdirectories, so not ~/Downloads but e.g. ~/Downloads/shared. This way you can unmount the NTFS drive at will, and still have a functional directory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the idea.

Which one is more beneficial?

(Personal preference)

So, No Difference?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's been ages since I've mounted a working NTFS mount point but if I remember correctly, it's more finicky with I/O transactions than ext4.

As a result, I never mounted or symlinked NTFS on my home directory directly, and instead mounted it elsewhere and then saved files to that location directly.

If possible, I'd consider doing the opposite of what you're doing. Keep your home directory and then expose them using samba to your windows environment. Samba is more stable than mounting NTFS, again in my experience.

NTFS may have gotten an upgrade since I last used it (early 2010s).

But if I had to choose, I'd do symlinks since doing mount points can get messy at boot time. And you'll never run the risk of the mount not being there and then you accidentally saving something in the directory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Thank you.