Mount your internal disks to /D:
, /E:
, /F:
, etc.
🥇
Permanent drives should be put wherever you want them to, for example I have mine mounted in /ld1
for Large Disk 1. /media
is supposed to be used by systems to mount things you plug, but some systems move that to /var/run/media
or other places. /mnt
is there so you don't have to create a folder in case you want to mount something really quick.
Thanks man.
Idk, I mount my disks in /mnt/whatever, though I don't think it matters where you mount them.
Anything I add to fstab gets mounted in /mnt
and removable drives get auto mounted to /media
. Linux doesn't care where you mount your drives, they can be mounted anywhere you want.
Linux doesn't care where you mount your drives, they can be mounted anywhere you want.
Thank You
With Linux filesystem hierarchies you're going to run into a lot of history, conventions, quasi-standards and simply deprecated implementations.
It's a problem of "there's no bad way to do it so all options are equally fine". From this arose some "guidelines" about /bin and /usr/bin, /var, etc. but few strict rules.
For a long time there was no /media. In the '90s/2000's you would mount your CD-ROM and floppies in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/floppy). That was awkward as we started wanting auto-mounted things and wanted to do it from user-space. So /media/username was created to allow you to mount things with your ownership.
If it's something you want permanently mounted but not part of a pool you can put it under any location you like really. I like locations under /var as historically /var is used for things that "vary". You could just mount it in your $HOME if it's something you're going to use as a user rather than with a service.
I have a "/exports" dir for NFS mounts (e.g. /export/media, /export/storage, etc.). Just keeps it tidy and in one location.
The important thing is to use a standard that works for you and makes sense. There's not a lot of bad places to mount things. If "/mnt" makes sense for you then go for it.
To piggy-back off of this, it's not entirely uncommon to create another directory at root in enterprise environments, using /data or /application That said, I only do that for enterprise, for my personal computer, my distro defaulted to auto-mounting to a directory for each drive inside of /mnt, and I rather like that and intend to stick with it.
I know it is kinda frowned on but I like to use new directories at root to cut down on confusion as to where things are. Video storage for the NVR goes in /video, user data for Nextcloud goes in /data, etc. But I also keep everything in it's own LXC so I don't have one machine with 30 extra directories cluttering up the root.
Mounting locations are a convention, not a standard, mount whatever you like wherever you like. In your case, I'd mount it under /mnt/ntfs, /mnt/windows if it a windows main partition you want visible, or by drive letter if it's a secondary drive on a dual-boot system.
Or however you want. I would keep it under /mnt, but you don't have to.
Do maybe sure you have user permissions set up properly if this is a multiuser machine though
Edit: also I would interpret
If /mnt is for temporary
'temporary' as in 'may become unmounted without seriously fucking the system'
/ and /home aren't temporary. Everywhere else is
'temporary' as in 'may become unmounted without seriously fucking the system'
Thanks bro. Now it make sense.
Use any you want. I've been mounting my internal secondary hard drive on /mnt for well over a year now and haven't had any problems. Previously, I mounted it on ~/Storage
and it also worked fine (though only because I'm the only user in my computer; dual-user systems would result in the other user being unable to access the hard drive).
Actually since their permanent non-removable drives, I would say wherever you want to place them, if they're meant primarily for storing user-based data you can do like what I used to do which was store them in within the home directory just as specific names. Like my old setup before I went proxmox was /backups was my backup drive, /home was my home drive that stored most of my users /home/steam held all my game server drive and /home/storage held my long term cold storage drive.
/C:
It ultimately doesn't actually matter because in many cases these things are convention and there is no real system-based effect. So while it would be especially weird if your distro installed packages into those directories, it ultimately doesn't matter. Someone already linked the filesystem hirearchy. See how tiny the /media and /mnt sections are?
I put my fixed disks into subdirectories under /mnt and I mount my NAS shares (I keep it offline most of the time) in subdirectories in /media.
In the past I've tended towards /srv/*
as most mounts end up being application specific storage.
Though now it is all mounted as container volume storage.
I use /srv for all mu shared mounts for all the *arr's
The best mounting position is /booty
.
Thank You for suggestion. Gonna try that Tonight and have fun mounting loads of data.
I create /data and mount my 2nd drive there using fstab.
I then mount /data/downloads under my user downloads folder so everything goes to my 2nd drive. That way I dont have to redownload anything if I redo my main drive.
Basically if I add it to my fstab it goes to /mnt. I let the system handle /media for usb etc
The Linux FHS does not address this, so it's up to you where to mount it. There is no correct choice, but if you want to follow standards just mount it inside /mnt which is the nearest use-case (/media could be automatically used by your DE, so avoid it). Otherwise you can just create a custom folder in root like someone else suggested.
Take a look at FHS spec.
Edit:
On arch forum someone suggests /mnt/data
Linux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0