|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > March 2007 > Can't add a second drive?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Can't add a second drive?
|
|
| ***** charles 2007-03-26, 7:14 pm |
| Hi all,
I am using Mint, a derivative of Ubuntu which is a derivative
of Debian so that's why I am here. The initial install of Mint
2.2 i386 went fine. I disconnected the cdrom and traded it
for a 30G ide hard drive. The drive is identified as hdc and
the gui partitioner found it and I could install one partition
label bsd and type ext3. That process seems to be
perminant. Problem is when I try to add a directory in
/dev called harddrive2 and add the appropriate line in
fstab both of those two actions "disappear" when I
reboot the computer. If I create the directory and mount
the hard drive manually it works fine. But the minute I
restart the computer the second hard drive disappears
since the directory I created is gone.
How do I make the directory and the install perminant?
thanks,
charles.....
| |
| Michael Fierro 2007-03-26, 7:14 pm |
| On 2007-03-26, ***** charles <shultzjrX@sbcglobal.net> rambled on thusly:
> for a 30G ide hard drive. The drive is identified as hdc and
> the gui partitioner found it and I could install one partition
> label bsd and type ext3. That process seems to be
> perminant. Problem is when I try to add a directory in
> /dev called harddrive2 and add the appropriate line in
Here's the short answer: Don't do that!
Longer answer: most distros (and anything Debian/Ubuntu-based like Mint)
use udev. /dev is not static, it is generated on the fly. What is there on
one boot may or not be there again, depending on what hardware is attached.
This is as it should be: it creates a much more adaptable system.
What you should be doing is adding a line in /etc/fstab, along the lines
of:
/dev/hdc /wherever/you/want/this/mounted ext3 defaults 0 0
You already told us that the hard drive is /dev/hdc, which makes things a
lot easier.
/wherever/you/want/this/mounted should be the directory you want the new
disk mounted at. That could /media/hdc, /home/newdrive, /harddrive2 (is
that what you were shooting for?).
ext3 should be the filesystem on the new drive. ext3 is the default on most
distros nowadays, but you should put the correct filename there.
defaults is the list of options for the mount. You'll probably want this
mounting automatically on boot, so just leave it as defaults.
And of course leave 0 0 as they are.
--
Michael Fierro (aka Biffster) biffster@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com
http://apt-get.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
--
Doctor: He is another aspect of me, just as I am of him.
Jamie: Eh?
Doctor Six: I was him, he will be me.
Jamie: Who will I be?
- Doctor Who
| |
| ***** charles 2007-03-27, 1:12 pm |
| "Michael Fierro" <the_biffster@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cYmdnZmPGdV00ZXbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> On 2007-03-26, ***** charles <shultzjrX@sbcglobal.net> rambled on thusly:
>
>
> Here's the short answer: Don't do that!
>
> Longer answer: most distros (and anything Debian/Ubuntu-based like Mint)
> use udev. /dev is not static, it is generated on the fly. What is there on
> one boot may or not be there again, depending on what hardware is
attached.
> This is as it should be: it creates a much more adaptable system.
>
> What you should be doing is adding a line in /etc/fstab, along the lines
> of:
>
> /dev/hdc /wherever/you/want/this/mounted ext3 defaults 0 0
>
> You already told us that the hard drive is /dev/hdc, which makes things a
> lot easier.
>
> /wherever/you/want/this/mounted should be the directory you want the new
> disk mounted at. That could /media/hdc, /home/newdrive, /harddrive2 (is
> that what you were shooting for?).
>
> ext3 should be the filesystem on the new drive. ext3 is the default on
most
> distros nowadays, but you should put the correct filename there.
>
> defaults is the list of options for the mount. You'll probably want this
> mounting automatically on boot, so just leave it as defaults.
>
> And of course leave 0 0 as they are.
Thanks for the feedback. I guess that /dev contents being fluid is a
characteristic
of Linux that I didn't know. I gather from your post that if I just choose
a directory
name like /harddrive2 off the root, that should be a perminant
configuration? I am
just trying to set up a shared file area that any client Linux/Windows can
access
from my lan without any security.
later.......
| |
| AJackson 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On Mar 27, 2:41 pm, "***** charles" <shultz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Michael Fierro" <the_biffs...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cYmdnZmPGdV00ZXbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> attached.
>
>
>
>
>
> most
>
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I guess that /dev contents being fluid is a
> characteristic
> of Linux that I didn't know. I gather from your post that if I just choose
> a directory
> name like /harddrive2 off the root, that should be a perminant
> configuration?
Yes, it will. But it must exist before you can mount on it.
> I am just trying to set up a shared file area that any client Linux/Windows can
> access
> from my lan without any security.
>
> later.......
Ok, so you will set up Samba to share your directory /harddrive2 to
others? I would have another name for that directory, that is logical
and not connected to a physical drive like the old sudgestion. I
would name it like /srv/shares or /srv/windows. Then you can put one
or more disk to be shared through Samba under that name, without
reconfigure your Samba server or MS Windows clients.
LMV is realy flexible to resize partitions, which you should have a
look at later. It allows you to resize a partition easily later.
Good luck.
| |
| Michael Fierro 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On 2007-03-27, ***** charles <shultzjrX@sbcglobal.net> rambled on thusly:
> Thanks for the feedback. I guess that /dev contents being fluid is a
> characteristic of Linux that I didn't know.
Everything changes.  udev is very, very good stuff. It makes supporting
removable devices a whole lot easier. And does fun stuff like automatically
creating /dev/ipod (allowing mounting an iPod to /media/ipod), no matter
what sd device the iPod is actually detected at.
> I gather from your post that if I just choose a directory
> name like /harddrive2 off the root, that should be a perminant
> configuration?
Yeah, basically. The directory you are going to mount to should already
exist. Debian/Ubuntu conventions have extra devices mounting in a directory
under /media, but that's totally up to you. Create a directory with a name
you'll remember wherever you want it in the filesystem, and then set up
fstab to mount the drive there.
For example, I like to keep my multimedia files in my home directory, but
on a separate partition. So I have /home/user/media, and mount /dev/hda7
there.
I am
> just trying to set up a shared file area that any client Linux/Windows can
> access from my lan without any security.
Then getting the drive mounted is only your first step. The next steps will
be installing and configuring samba and (optionally) nfs. This is actually
how I have things set up on my Debian fileserver (though I still have
security set up, 'cuz I think not having basic security is just begging for
problems). It's not the easiest thing in the world to do, but it also isn't
that difficult, either.
--
Michael Fierro (aka Biffster) biffster@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com
http://apt-get.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
--
"No, there is too much. Let me sum up. Buttercup is marry' Humperdinck
in a little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break
up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape... after I kill Count
Rugen."
- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"
| |
| ***** charles 2007-03-28, 1:12 pm |
| <snip>
> Ok, so you will set up Samba to share your directory /harddrive2 to
> others? I would have another name for that directory, that is logical
> and not connected to a physical drive like the old sudgestion. I
> would name it like /srv/shares or /srv/windows. Then you can put one
> or more disk to be shared through Samba under that name, without
> reconfigure your Samba server or MS Windows clients.
> LMV is realy flexible to resize partitions, which you should have a
> look at later. It allows you to resize a partition easily later.
>
> Good luck.
I kind of like the idea of /share/files. Most of the stuff I need to share
to other computers are drivers, music, iso's, customizations, files I only
want to download just once. That includes files to do network installs
to other machines. I haven't gotten much into movies yet, maybe later.
I have done samba before on other machines so that shouldn't be to
bad. The lan is not connected to the Internet at the moment so security
is less of a concern but when I do link it, I will definately add that to
the
mix. After this experiment works out I will put together a machine that
is a "real" file server with LOTS of space. Then I will probably pick a
different os other than Mint. The three candidates at the moment are
Regular Debian, Ubuntu Server and CentOS. I would add Red Hat
Enterprise Linux or Suse Server but you have to pay for those and I
would like to stick with "free" stuff. Solaris X86 is free finally but I
always got the feeling that it was a step child to the Solaris Sparc
version.
thanks all for the feedback,
charles.....
| |
|
| Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 4yYUwIWEnaxGMR/iBZFv6Qo9Jc1+TmuxOxgR7uBWIFo/mNdQF9
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.debian:5535
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:34:58 -0600, ***** charles wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> I kind of like the idea of /share/files. Most of the stuff I need to share
> to other computers are drivers, music, iso's, customizations, files I only
> want to download just once. That includes files to do network installs
> to other machines. I haven't gotten much into movies yet, maybe later.
> I have done samba before on other machines so that shouldn't be to
> bad. The lan is not connected to the Internet at the moment so security
> is less of a concern but when I do link it, I will definately add that to
> the
> mix. After this experiment works out I will put together a machine that
> is a "real" file server with LOTS of space. Then I will probably pick a
> different os other than Mint. The three candidates at the moment are
> Regular Debian, Ubuntu Server and CentOS. I would add Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux or Suse Server but you have to pay for those and I
> would like to stick with "free" stuff. Solaris X86 is free finally but I
> always got the feeling that it was a step child to the Solaris Sparc
> version.
>
> thanks all for the feedback,
> charles.....
In my general experience, if you want to share files but only for a few
times download, an easy way to do that is to run apache web server on the
local machine and put the stuff to be downloaded (or a link) in /var/www
(or wherever your distro starts the web server tree). That way you don't
have to mess with samba which, IMHO, is not the easiest thing in the world
to setup. I believe there is a samba howto at www.tldp.org and the content
of the O'Reilly samba book is available free online from their web site
(though you have to dig a bit to find it). BTW - it's usually best to
describe what you're after in your initial query rather than just going
after the bits and pieces - what you have in mind may not be the best way
to proceed.
| |
| Harold Stevens 2007-03-28, 7:12 pm |
| In <pan.2007.03.28.17.36.48.548573@zianet.com> ray:
[Snip...]
> if you want to share files but only for a few times download, an easy way
> to do that is to run apache web server on the local machine
Yes, IME at a workplace with Doze desktops needing read/update rights for
materials/process documentation, a local Linux/Apache server was fine. It
may not fit generally, but as you mention, it might in this case. I would
certainly hope the OP gives the Apache server approach consideration.
FWIW, I agree: sometimes Samba and/or NFS are just way too much overkill.
JMO; YMMV...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
| |
|
| On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:36:51 -0600, ray wrote:
> In my general experience, if you want to share files but only for a few
> times download, an easy way to do that is to run apache web server on the
> local machine and put the stuff to be downloaded (or a link) in /var/www
> (or wherever your distro starts the web server tree).
I agree with that as well. Samba can be a real pita.
You can also use webdav (web folders) with apache. This was good
with the old version of windows IE when it supported it, you could just
drag and drop files into the browser so that you could upload as well as
download. Unfortunately it's no longer supported in the new IE. It still
works with Linux though. In Ubuntu (Gnome in general?) go to
Places->Connect To Server and select webdav.
Dan
| |
| ***** charles 2007-03-30, 1:13 pm |
| "Harold Stevens" <wookie@aces.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrnf0le0v.568.wyrd@aces.localdomain...
> In <pan.2007.03.28.17.36.48.548573@zianet.com> ray:
>
> [Snip...]
>
way[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, IME at a workplace with Doze desktops needing read/update rights for
> materials/process documentation, a local Linux/Apache server was fine. It
> may not fit generally, but as you mention, it might in this case. I would
> certainly hope the OP gives the Apache server approach consideration.
>
> FWIW, I agree: sometimes Samba and/or NFS are just way too much overkill.
I have done samba before and I hadn't thought of doing it with apache but I
will look into it. I would guess that the security side of it would be
similar
between samba and apache? ID's and passwords.
later.....
|
|
|
|
|