scary music server
#1 scary music server
I had cause to look for a particular track on my music server yesterday. The track was missing.
I have my music server in a standard directory structure which is track within album within artist. The tracks are named nn - name.flac, e.g
01 - track1.flac
I do it this way because I usually use the squeezebox by going through the browse directory structure menu entry.....rather than use any of the indexing methods.
anyway, the track I was looking for was missing..and so were some other tracks on the particular album.........panic
I checked on the backup, and the tracks were there......panic
so I ran my differences program to show what was on the backup that wasn't on the server....there were about 30 items, some individual tracks and some complete artist directories.....
I have spent the morning putting back what was missing....
I have had no failure messages, the server disc checks as no errors and there are no error logs on the server......I'm mystified, but scared
the server is a buffalo linkstation NAS drive, hacked with a different linux to allow telnet entry...it has not given any probs since I set it up in 2006.
anybody got any ideas
edit: Having thought about this a bit more...if it were disc failure it would manifest itself in a much different way, i.e the tracks would likely be there but unplayable by corruption.....the FAT would still be in place so to speak.......this smacks more of sabotage as specific files were missing.......mmmmm
I have my music server in a standard directory structure which is track within album within artist. The tracks are named nn - name.flac, e.g
01 - track1.flac
I do it this way because I usually use the squeezebox by going through the browse directory structure menu entry.....rather than use any of the indexing methods.
anyway, the track I was looking for was missing..and so were some other tracks on the particular album.........panic
I checked on the backup, and the tracks were there......panic
so I ran my differences program to show what was on the backup that wasn't on the server....there were about 30 items, some individual tracks and some complete artist directories.....
I have spent the morning putting back what was missing....
I have had no failure messages, the server disc checks as no errors and there are no error logs on the server......I'm mystified, but scared
the server is a buffalo linkstation NAS drive, hacked with a different linux to allow telnet entry...it has not given any probs since I set it up in 2006.
anybody got any ideas
edit: Having thought about this a bit more...if it were disc failure it would manifest itself in a much different way, i.e the tracks would likely be there but unplayable by corruption.....the FAT would still be in place so to speak.......this smacks more of sabotage as specific files were missing.......mmmmm
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
#2
ooh, this is getting much scarier
I've just looked at the directory contents of those items I replaced in both slimserver and in linux on the server....
the items are now duplicated
but windows shows them in explorer as only the item I reloaded...
e.g the linux ls report is not the same as the windows directory list......
same with slimserver...if I look at the directory contents there are 2 versions of the stuff I reloaded, one version of which has a letter changed in the filename to prevent duplication......
anybody any idea why windows might not be showing these files when they are quite plainly there.
the unix/linux file attributes are identical for the original file and it's duplicate...
aaaaarggghh waily waily
edit: I've just wasted an entire morning restoring files that were already on the disc--------in my defense I'm not so stupid because I had no reason to believe that windows was giving me false information
I've just looked at the directory contents of those items I replaced in both slimserver and in linux on the server....
the items are now duplicated
but windows shows them in explorer as only the item I reloaded...
e.g the linux ls report is not the same as the windows directory list......
same with slimserver...if I look at the directory contents there are 2 versions of the stuff I reloaded, one version of which has a letter changed in the filename to prevent duplication......
anybody any idea why windows might not be showing these files when they are quite plainly there.
the unix/linux file attributes are identical for the original file and it's duplicate...
aaaaarggghh waily waily
edit: I've just wasted an entire morning restoring files that were already on the disc--------in my defense I'm not so stupid because I had no reason to believe that windows was giving me false information
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
- Mike H
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 20189
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:38 pm
- Location: The Fens
- Contact:
#4
They are therefore hidden from Windows. Files can be hidden from Windows.
Try looking at the settings in Windows explorer, might be a clue there. It might for example be only files with the archive bit set are visible, or something like that. But I'm guessing.
The hiding of files thing is I think so that computer dim-wits are not confused by seeing files that they have no idea what they're for. It's one more example of Windows trying to be helpful (but failing)
Try looking at the settings in Windows explorer, might be a clue there. It might for example be only files with the archive bit set are visible, or something like that. But I'm guessing.
The hiding of files thing is I think so that computer dim-wits are not confused by seeing files that they have no idea what they're for. It's one more example of Windows trying to be helpful (but failing)
"No matter how fast light travels it finds that the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it."
- Mike H
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 20189
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:38 pm
- Location: The Fens
- Contact:
#5
Appendix ~ another possibility is user access control, if you've got it. The user identity you are using is being prevented from seeing those files.
This is another 'helpful' feature that prevents 2 or more users on the same computer seeing others users' private files.
This is another 'helpful' feature that prevents 2 or more users on the same computer seeing others users' private files.
"No matter how fast light travels it finds that the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it."
#6
mmmmmm? If I can't see the files in windows explorer, how am I going to see the settings for these files??Mike H wrote:
Try looking at the settings in Windows explorer, might be a clue there. It might for example be only files with the archive bit set are visible, or something like that. But I'm guessing.
from my previous post:
I am totally mystified......I have found a way around this but it's super tedious....I delete the file or directory that I re-installed which leaves the original file or directory with the rogue character in the name and then I delete this file or directory with a wild card to access the rogue character.....then reinstall the file or directory from the backup.the unix/linux file attributes are identical for the original file and it's duplicate...
the single copy of the file/directory is then visible in windows.
as I said very tedious...I can't see a simpler way
either way I'm a bit scared...I might have to divert some scarce funds towards a new music server.....oh waily waily
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
- Mike H
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 20189
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:38 pm
- Location: The Fens
- Contact:
#7
No you do it through the Windows explorer menu, Tools > Folder Options. Bearing in mind I'm using Vista. Under the view tab is the ability to turn on or off hidden files and folders. Then as you say the file will have a hidden attribute under its own properties. You can look up about hidden files in Windows help.
HTH
HTH
"No matter how fast light travels it finds that the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it."
#8
Hi Mike
thanks for giving this some thought........
As usual I don't think I've explained myself very well.....
These are linux controlled files on a linux machine being served to a workgroup network.....
I maintain the files(load them) through windows explorer because its easier to do the tagging of the flac files. I don't usually have cause to view them, and certainly don't play them through windows.
so I happened to look at a directory through windows yesterday and what I saw was:
01 - track one.flac
03 - track three.flac
04 -
05 -
07 -
08 -
etc
02 and 06 were not there, so I put them back from the backup, and everything showed in explorer.
I checked on the squeezebox and saw there were two track 02 and two track 06 but the filenames on the duplicates had been subtly altered to prevent duplicate names. I double checked on the server and there were indeed two copies of everything that I'd reloaded.
now, bearing in mind that nothing has been changed on the server, control wise, and nothing has been changed vis file attributes or access rights on the windows machine, I checked the file view settings in Windows explorer and the file attributes on the server. Everything was ok.....it was just that the linux server wasn't passing some info to windows on the network, or if it was then windows wasn't acknowledging it.
In a nutshell, the whole of a directory was visible in windows explorer before and now certain files were missing....all files in the directory had the same settings.
thanks for giving this some thought........
As usual I don't think I've explained myself very well.....
These are linux controlled files on a linux machine being served to a workgroup network.....
I maintain the files(load them) through windows explorer because its easier to do the tagging of the flac files. I don't usually have cause to view them, and certainly don't play them through windows.
so I happened to look at a directory through windows yesterday and what I saw was:
01 - track one.flac
03 - track three.flac
04 -
05 -
07 -
08 -
etc
02 and 06 were not there, so I put them back from the backup, and everything showed in explorer.
I checked on the squeezebox and saw there were two track 02 and two track 06 but the filenames on the duplicates had been subtly altered to prevent duplicate names. I double checked on the server and there were indeed two copies of everything that I'd reloaded.
now, bearing in mind that nothing has been changed on the server, control wise, and nothing has been changed vis file attributes or access rights on the windows machine, I checked the file view settings in Windows explorer and the file attributes on the server. Everything was ok.....it was just that the linux server wasn't passing some info to windows on the network, or if it was then windows wasn't acknowledging it.
In a nutshell, the whole of a directory was visible in windows explorer before and now certain files were missing....all files in the directory had the same settings.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
- The Stratmangler
- Shed dweller
- Posts: 2893
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:50 pm
- Location: Rossendale, Lancashire
#10
hi Chris
still on slimserver 6.2.2
from post #2:
just to recap:
in windows I see 1 copy of the files/directories I reloaded
in linux I see 2 copies of the files
in slimserver I see 2 copies of the files
on squeezebox I see 2 copies of the files
and....they are only 1 or 2 or 3 random files in any particular directory
still on slimserver 6.2.2
from post #2:
by that I meant 'browse music folder' from the web interface to slimserver.same with slimserver...if I look at the directory contents there are 2 versions of the stuff I reloaded, one version of which has a letter changed in the filename to prevent duplication......
just to recap:
in windows I see 1 copy of the files/directories I reloaded
in linux I see 2 copies of the files
in slimserver I see 2 copies of the files
on squeezebox I see 2 copies of the files
and....they are only 1 or 2 or 3 random files in any particular directory
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
#11
Ed, I know there are issues with old samba versions with new (Vista onwards) windows versions. Not sure which ones work together TBH, but I had a terrible time with windows 7 and samba V2.x (think that's right). Don't really know much about it - it was for work, so we went out and bought a buffalo/bison/wildebeest or something and everything was fixed.
Any way you can check the samba version and update it?
HTH,
Brian
Any way you can check the samba version and update it?
HTH,
Brian
#14
That's a good point but isn't the server Linux?Nick wrote:It may be windows being non case sensitive?
Hmm so that leads me to the question...How did the stuff get on there originally, was it copied from Windows and are you you a different Windows machine? What's changed in the system/chain?
Analogue, the lost world that lies between 0 and 1.