What is the difference between mount and mount -o loop

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I have a iso file named ubuntu.iso.
I can mount it with the command: mount ubuntu.iso /mnt. After mounting it, I can see it from the outout of the command df -h: /dev/loop0 825M 825M 0 100% /mnt.
However, if I execute the command mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt, I'll get the same result.
As I know, loop device allows us to visit the iso file as a device, I think this is why we add the option -o loop. But I can visit my iso file even if I only execute mount ubuntu.iso /mnt.
So I can't see the difference between mount and mount -o loop.
mount loop-device
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I have a iso file named ubuntu.iso.
I can mount it with the command: mount ubuntu.iso /mnt. After mounting it, I can see it from the outout of the command df -h: /dev/loop0 825M 825M 0 100% /mnt.
However, if I execute the command mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt, I'll get the same result.
As I know, loop device allows us to visit the iso file as a device, I think this is why we add the option -o loop. But I can visit my iso file even if I only execute mount ubuntu.iso /mnt.
So I can't see the difference between mount and mount -o loop.
mount loop-device
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:mount ubuntu.iso /mntit do not setup a read-only loopback device,andmount /image.squashfs /mntit do not setup aDIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.
â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I have a iso file named ubuntu.iso.
I can mount it with the command: mount ubuntu.iso /mnt. After mounting it, I can see it from the outout of the command df -h: /dev/loop0 825M 825M 0 100% /mnt.
However, if I execute the command mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt, I'll get the same result.
As I know, loop device allows us to visit the iso file as a device, I think this is why we add the option -o loop. But I can visit my iso file even if I only execute mount ubuntu.iso /mnt.
So I can't see the difference between mount and mount -o loop.
mount loop-device
I have a iso file named ubuntu.iso.
I can mount it with the command: mount ubuntu.iso /mnt. After mounting it, I can see it from the outout of the command df -h: /dev/loop0 825M 825M 0 100% /mnt.
However, if I execute the command mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt, I'll get the same result.
As I know, loop device allows us to visit the iso file as a device, I think this is why we add the option -o loop. But I can visit my iso file even if I only execute mount ubuntu.iso /mnt.
So I can't see the difference between mount and mount -o loop.
mount loop-device
mount loop-device
asked Sep 5 at 7:19
Yves
818417
818417
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:mount ubuntu.iso /mntit do not setup a read-only loopback device,andmount /image.squashfs /mntit do not setup aDIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.
â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39
add a comment |Â
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:mount ubuntu.iso /mntit do not setup a read-only loopback device,andmount /image.squashfs /mntit do not setup aDIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.
â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:
mount ubuntu.iso /mnt it do not setup a read-only loopback device,and mount /image.squashfs /mnt it do not setup a DIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:
mount ubuntu.iso /mnt it do not setup a read-only loopback device,and mount /image.squashfs /mnt it do not setup a DIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
33
down vote
accepted
Both versions use loop devices, and produce the same result; the short version relies on âÂÂclevernessâ added to mount in recent years. mount -o loop tells mount explicitly to use a loop device; it leaves the loop device itself up to mount, which will look for an available device, set it up, and use that. (You can specify the device too with e.g. mount -o loop=/dev/loop1.)
The cleverness is that, when given a file to mount, mount will automatically use a loop device to mount it when necessary â i.e., the file system isnâÂÂt specified, or libblkid determines that the file system is only supported on block devices (and therefore a loop device is needed to translate the file into a block device).
The loop device section of the mount man page has more details.
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).util-linux2.11 supportedmount -o loopin 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for-o loopwas added sometime betweenutil-linux2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,mountwill be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlikemount -o loopwhich still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.
â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The loop device is primarily controlled with the losteup command. So losetup -a gives you overview about the used loop devices and attached files. The mount command can mount the block device only. The loop device can create the virtual block device from a file (character device).
In fact there is a great difference between those commands because on older Linux systems the mount could not recognise the file as the correct device to be mounted, but during the time the mount command was completed with lot of feature, hence it can now self decide to try to call the losetup command and mount the result. But if you got a whole disk image not iso format but e.g. with MBR at the beginning, the mount command could not recognise it and you have to find the usable partition (e.g. with the parted disk_image.raw unit B print command) yoursef and than mount it with full option mount comman as :
mount disk_image.raw /mntpoint/ -o loop,offset=$OFFSET_of_PARTITION
In this syntax the loop device was not specified and it is assumed the system choose the first free (/dev/loop0, /dev/loop1 etc)
Among the other new features of mount command is that you need not specify the filesystem type of the mounted block device (in your case -t iso9660) if the filesystem support was installed.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
There is no difference between mount ubuntu.iso /mnt and mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt.
The first is transparently handled as if you had used the second.
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
33
down vote
accepted
Both versions use loop devices, and produce the same result; the short version relies on âÂÂclevernessâ added to mount in recent years. mount -o loop tells mount explicitly to use a loop device; it leaves the loop device itself up to mount, which will look for an available device, set it up, and use that. (You can specify the device too with e.g. mount -o loop=/dev/loop1.)
The cleverness is that, when given a file to mount, mount will automatically use a loop device to mount it when necessary â i.e., the file system isnâÂÂt specified, or libblkid determines that the file system is only supported on block devices (and therefore a loop device is needed to translate the file into a block device).
The loop device section of the mount man page has more details.
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).util-linux2.11 supportedmount -o loopin 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for-o loopwas added sometime betweenutil-linux2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,mountwill be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlikemount -o loopwhich still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.
â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
add a comment |Â
up vote
33
down vote
accepted
Both versions use loop devices, and produce the same result; the short version relies on âÂÂclevernessâ added to mount in recent years. mount -o loop tells mount explicitly to use a loop device; it leaves the loop device itself up to mount, which will look for an available device, set it up, and use that. (You can specify the device too with e.g. mount -o loop=/dev/loop1.)
The cleverness is that, when given a file to mount, mount will automatically use a loop device to mount it when necessary â i.e., the file system isnâÂÂt specified, or libblkid determines that the file system is only supported on block devices (and therefore a loop device is needed to translate the file into a block device).
The loop device section of the mount man page has more details.
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).util-linux2.11 supportedmount -o loopin 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for-o loopwas added sometime betweenutil-linux2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,mountwill be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlikemount -o loopwhich still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.
â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
add a comment |Â
up vote
33
down vote
accepted
up vote
33
down vote
accepted
Both versions use loop devices, and produce the same result; the short version relies on âÂÂclevernessâ added to mount in recent years. mount -o loop tells mount explicitly to use a loop device; it leaves the loop device itself up to mount, which will look for an available device, set it up, and use that. (You can specify the device too with e.g. mount -o loop=/dev/loop1.)
The cleverness is that, when given a file to mount, mount will automatically use a loop device to mount it when necessary â i.e., the file system isnâÂÂt specified, or libblkid determines that the file system is only supported on block devices (and therefore a loop device is needed to translate the file into a block device).
The loop device section of the mount man page has more details.
Both versions use loop devices, and produce the same result; the short version relies on âÂÂclevernessâ added to mount in recent years. mount -o loop tells mount explicitly to use a loop device; it leaves the loop device itself up to mount, which will look for an available device, set it up, and use that. (You can specify the device too with e.g. mount -o loop=/dev/loop1.)
The cleverness is that, when given a file to mount, mount will automatically use a loop device to mount it when necessary â i.e., the file system isnâÂÂt specified, or libblkid determines that the file system is only supported on block devices (and therefore a loop device is needed to translate the file into a block device).
The loop device section of the mount man page has more details.
edited Sep 6 at 12:56
answered Sep 5 at 7:29
Stephen Kitt
147k22321389
147k22321389
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).util-linux2.11 supportedmount -o loopin 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for-o loopwas added sometime betweenutil-linux2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,mountwill be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlikemount -o loopwhich still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.
â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
add a comment |Â
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).util-linux2.11 supportedmount -o loopin 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for-o loopwas added sometime betweenutil-linux2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.
â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,mountwill be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlikemount -o loopwhich still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.
â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
1
1
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
Not *that * long ago there was no "-o loop" option in mount either and you would have to manually create the loop device with losetup command.
â Edheldil
Sep 6 at 11:34
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).
util-linux 2.11 supported mount -o loop in 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
@Edheldil that depends on your notion of âÂÂlong agoâ ;-).
util-linux 2.11 supported mount -o loop in 2001, and I think 2.10 had it too, at least a year earlier.â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 11:56
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
Yeah, but did commonly used stable distributions in 2001 use util-linux 2.11 already?
â rackandboneman
Sep 6 at 12:08
1
1
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for
-o loop was added sometime between util-linux 2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
@rackandboneman I went digging a bit more, and it turns out that support for
-o loop was added sometime between util-linux 2.4 and 2.5j; Debian 1.1 had the latter and was released in June 1996. So this option has been available in distributions for over twenty years.â Stephen Kitt
Sep 6 at 12:41
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,
mount will be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlike mount -o loop which still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
An advantage to this cleverness: if/when XFS developers' new "direct file mount" feature (without the need for loop devices) reaches the kernel,
mount will be able to switch to that mechanism transparently (At least for the first 15 minutes until it turns out it broke somebody's shellscript and everyone has to go back to loop devices), unlike mount -o loop which still explicitly asks for the old (current) mechanism.â grawity
Sep 7 at 6:31
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The loop device is primarily controlled with the losteup command. So losetup -a gives you overview about the used loop devices and attached files. The mount command can mount the block device only. The loop device can create the virtual block device from a file (character device).
In fact there is a great difference between those commands because on older Linux systems the mount could not recognise the file as the correct device to be mounted, but during the time the mount command was completed with lot of feature, hence it can now self decide to try to call the losetup command and mount the result. But if you got a whole disk image not iso format but e.g. with MBR at the beginning, the mount command could not recognise it and you have to find the usable partition (e.g. with the parted disk_image.raw unit B print command) yoursef and than mount it with full option mount comman as :
mount disk_image.raw /mntpoint/ -o loop,offset=$OFFSET_of_PARTITION
In this syntax the loop device was not specified and it is assumed the system choose the first free (/dev/loop0, /dev/loop1 etc)
Among the other new features of mount command is that you need not specify the filesystem type of the mounted block device (in your case -t iso9660) if the filesystem support was installed.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The loop device is primarily controlled with the losteup command. So losetup -a gives you overview about the used loop devices and attached files. The mount command can mount the block device only. The loop device can create the virtual block device from a file (character device).
In fact there is a great difference between those commands because on older Linux systems the mount could not recognise the file as the correct device to be mounted, but during the time the mount command was completed with lot of feature, hence it can now self decide to try to call the losetup command and mount the result. But if you got a whole disk image not iso format but e.g. with MBR at the beginning, the mount command could not recognise it and you have to find the usable partition (e.g. with the parted disk_image.raw unit B print command) yoursef and than mount it with full option mount comman as :
mount disk_image.raw /mntpoint/ -o loop,offset=$OFFSET_of_PARTITION
In this syntax the loop device was not specified and it is assumed the system choose the first free (/dev/loop0, /dev/loop1 etc)
Among the other new features of mount command is that you need not specify the filesystem type of the mounted block device (in your case -t iso9660) if the filesystem support was installed.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
The loop device is primarily controlled with the losteup command. So losetup -a gives you overview about the used loop devices and attached files. The mount command can mount the block device only. The loop device can create the virtual block device from a file (character device).
In fact there is a great difference between those commands because on older Linux systems the mount could not recognise the file as the correct device to be mounted, but during the time the mount command was completed with lot of feature, hence it can now self decide to try to call the losetup command and mount the result. But if you got a whole disk image not iso format but e.g. with MBR at the beginning, the mount command could not recognise it and you have to find the usable partition (e.g. with the parted disk_image.raw unit B print command) yoursef and than mount it with full option mount comman as :
mount disk_image.raw /mntpoint/ -o loop,offset=$OFFSET_of_PARTITION
In this syntax the loop device was not specified and it is assumed the system choose the first free (/dev/loop0, /dev/loop1 etc)
Among the other new features of mount command is that you need not specify the filesystem type of the mounted block device (in your case -t iso9660) if the filesystem support was installed.
The loop device is primarily controlled with the losteup command. So losetup -a gives you overview about the used loop devices and attached files. The mount command can mount the block device only. The loop device can create the virtual block device from a file (character device).
In fact there is a great difference between those commands because on older Linux systems the mount could not recognise the file as the correct device to be mounted, but during the time the mount command was completed with lot of feature, hence it can now self decide to try to call the losetup command and mount the result. But if you got a whole disk image not iso format but e.g. with MBR at the beginning, the mount command could not recognise it and you have to find the usable partition (e.g. with the parted disk_image.raw unit B print command) yoursef and than mount it with full option mount comman as :
mount disk_image.raw /mntpoint/ -o loop,offset=$OFFSET_of_PARTITION
In this syntax the loop device was not specified and it is assumed the system choose the first free (/dev/loop0, /dev/loop1 etc)
Among the other new features of mount command is that you need not specify the filesystem type of the mounted block device (in your case -t iso9660) if the filesystem support was installed.
edited Sep 15 at 16:07
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
36.8k1273117
answered Sep 5 at 8:39
schweik
1804
1804
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
There is no difference between mount ubuntu.iso /mnt and mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt.
The first is transparently handled as if you had used the second.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
There is no difference between mount ubuntu.iso /mnt and mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt.
The first is transparently handled as if you had used the second.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
There is no difference between mount ubuntu.iso /mnt and mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt.
The first is transparently handled as if you had used the second.
There is no difference between mount ubuntu.iso /mnt and mount -o loop ubuntu.iso /mnt.
The first is transparently handled as if you had used the second.
answered Sep 5 at 7:28
Emmanuel Rosa
2,5701411
2,5701411
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466938%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-mount-and-mount-o-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Also a important thing is sometimes mount can't setup loopback device with appropriate arugments For example:
mount ubuntu.iso /mntit do not setup a read-only loopback device,andmount /image.squashfs /mntit do not setup aDIO(losetup --direct-io=on)loopback device.â illiterate
Sep 6 at 7:39