Re: HSFS vs ISO9660 (Charles Lindsey)

> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:53:45 +0100
> To: [email protected]
> From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Suns-at-Home] HSFS vs ISO9660
>
> I had always supposed that HSFS filesystems and ISO9660 file systems  
> (both
> including the customary Rock Ridge extensions), were the same thing, but
> seemingly not so.
>
> I have a file
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 chl chl   1445068800 Oct 20  2006 sol-10-u3-companion-ga.iso
> which is, of course, the Sun Companion DVD as downloaded from Sun....
>
> Now I have burned it onto a DVD using cdrecord on a Linux system (an  
> NSLU2
> aka 'slug' running slugosbE as it happens)....
>
> BUT, when I try to mout it on the Linux system, using
>     mount -t iso9660 /dev/scd0 /mnt
> it fails to mount, mumbling about "wrong fs type, bad option, bad
> superblock on /dev/scd0, missing codepage or other error" (which appears
> to be the generic error message for all mount failures), and the syslog
> shows

Since writing that, I have discovered how to do loopback mounts in Linux,  
and have established that the raw .iso file can indeed be mounted that way  
on Linux. So my original problem would seem to be a Linux problem (with  
mount(2) or with the cdrom module), so I shall pursue it further on the  
Linux nesgroups.

> Also, where can I find a list of FSTYPEs supported by Solaris; it seems  
> to
> recognise that 'udfs' is a valid FSTYPE (whereas 'foo' and 'iso9660' are
> not), but won't mount it as such? And 'fstyp' tells me that is it 'hsfs',
> as expected.
>
But I would still be interested to hear an answer to that.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5