Fedora Linux Support Community & Resources Center
  #1  
Old 16th May 2006, 05:32 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Not a valid block device

Hello,

I am trying to mount two partitions. Everything is on one harddrive and I want to mount my ntfs and fat32 partitions. I got the nfts drivers and my fdisk reads:

/dev/sda1 * 1830 8459 53255475 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda2 1 13 104391 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 14 1829 14587020 8e Linux LVM
/dev/sda4 8460 9733 10233405 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)

But when I run mount -t ntfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/Windows -r -o umask=0222
I get:
mount: /dev/sda1 is not a valid block device

I receive a similar message when I do a mount -a with my /etc/fstab with these additional lines:
/dev/sda1 /mnt/Windows ntfs ro,defaults,umask=0222 0 0
/dev/sda4 /mnt/FatPartition vfat rw,defaults,umask=0222 0 0

I then receive:
mount: /dev/sda1 is not a valid block device
mount: /dev/sda4 is not a valid block device


Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16th May 2006, 09:28 AM
giulix Offline
"Fixed" by (vague) request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GMT+ 1
Posts: 2,950
What's the output of the following commands, run as root
Code:
ls -l /dev/sda[1-9]
file /dev/sda[1-9]
blkid /dev/sda[1-9]
?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17th May 2006, 01:27 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Thanks for the response, here is what I get:

Quote:
Originally Posted by giulix
What's the output of the following commands, run as root
Code:
ls -l /dev/sda[1-9]

[root@x1-6-00-90-f5-3f-99-1d-1 ~]# ls -l /dev/sda[1-9]
brwx------ 1 root root 8, 1 May 16 15:20 /dev/sda1
brwx------ 1 root root 8, 2 May 16 15:20 /dev/sda2
brwx------ 1 root root 8, 3 May 16 15:20 /dev/sda3
brwx------ 1 root root 8, 4 May 16 15:20 /dev/sda4

file /dev/sda[1-9]

[root@x1-6-00-90-f5-3f-99-1d-1 ~]# file /dev/sda[1-9]
/dev/sda1: block special (8/1)
/dev/sda2: block special (8/2)
/dev/sda3: block special (8/3)
/dev/sda4: block special (8/4)

blkid /dev/sda[1-9]
nothing happens.
?
Thanks for any help from this new information.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17th May 2006, 02:40 AM
giulix Offline
"Fixed" by (vague) request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GMT+ 1
Posts: 2,950
Ok, everything's fine there. Can you give the output of
Code:
/sbin/lsmod
too, please ?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17th May 2006, 05:17 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by giulix
Ok, everything's fine there. Can you give the output of
Code:
/sbin/lsmod
too, please ?
Sure:

Code:
[root@x1-6-00-90-f5-3f-99-1d-1 ~]# /sbin/lsmod
Module                  Size  Used by
udf                    73285  1
ppdev                   8645  0
autofs4                19013  1
hidp                   15937  2
rfcomm                 34517  0
l2cap                  23617  10 hidp,rfcomm
bluetooth              44069  5 hidp,rfcomm,l2cap
sunrpc                136573  1
ip_conntrack_ftp        7601  0
ip_conntrack_netbios_ns     3009  0
ipt_REJECT              5441  1
xt_state                2241  3
ip_conntrack           49261  3 ip_conntrack_ftp,ip_conntrack_netbios_ns,xt_state
nfnetlink               6489  1 ip_conntrack
xt_tcpudp               3265  5
iptable_filter          3137  1
ip_tables              11657  1 iptable_filter
x_tables               12613  4 ipt_REJECT,xt_state,xt_tcpudp,ip_tables
acpi_cpufreq            6729  0
vfat                   11969  0
fat                    47709  1 vfat
ntfs                  187924  0
video                  14917  0
button                  6609  0
battery                 9285  0
ac                      4933  0
ipv6                  225697  10
lp                     12297  0
parport_pc             25445  1
parport                34313  3 ppdev,lp,parport_pc
floppy                 57733  0
nvram                   8393  0
ohci1394               31749  0
ieee1394              288665  1 ohci1394
uhci_hcd               28881  0
ehci_hcd               29005  0
sg                     32349  0
joydev                  9473  0
r8169                  27337  0
snd_hda_intel          17233  1
snd_hda_codec         112065  1 snd_hda_intel
nvidia               4544884  12
snd_seq_dummy           3781  0
snd_seq_oss            28993  0
snd_seq_midi_event      7105  1 snd_seq_oss
snd_seq                47153  5 snd_seq_dummy,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq_midi_event
snd_seq_device          8909  3 snd_seq_dummy,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq
snd_pcm_oss            45009  0
snd_mixer_oss          16449  1 snd_pcm_oss
snd_pcm                76869  3 snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_pcm_oss
snd_timer              22597  2 snd_seq,snd_pcm
snd                    50501  11 snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq,snd_seq_device,snd_pcm_oss,snd_mixer_oss,snd_pcm,snd_timer
i2c_i801                8525  0
hw_random               5849  0
soundcore               9377  1 snd
i2c_core               20673  2 nvidia,i2c_i801
snd_page_alloc         10441  2 snd_hda_intel,snd_pcm
dm_snapshot            15981  0
dm_zero                 2113  0
dm_mirror              19729  0
dm_mod                 50521  9 dm_snapshot,dm_zero,dm_mirror
ext3                  116169  2
jbd                    52693  1 ext3
sata_promise           11333  1
libata                 53969  1 sata_promise
sd_mod                 16449  1
scsi_mod              124649  4 sg,sata_promise,libata,sd_mod
If I can get the fat32 working, I don't need to worry about the ntfs. I was thinking that maybe the problem is I created the partition using partition magic in winxp instead of using a linux partition tool. I can't format the ntfs, but the fat32 wouldn't be a problem. Could this be the problem?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17th May 2006, 10:28 AM
giulix Offline
"Fixed" by (vague) request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GMT+ 1
Posts: 2,950
Yes, if the partition is unformatted, that is probably the reason.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18th May 2006, 03:22 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Actually, what I meant was that I had formatted the partition using partition magic instead of parted or some linux tool. However, I removed the partition and recreated it all using parted and it didn't help.

Thanks for any additional help.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18th May 2006, 03:27 AM
a thing Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 288
Have you tried fscking them from a live CD?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18th May 2006, 09:53 AM
giulix Offline
"Fixed" by (vague) request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GMT+ 1
Posts: 2,950
I suspect the drivers of your promise SATA raid controller have some problems... Do you have this type of controller on your system ?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24th May 2006, 04:48 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Yes, these are the host controllers:

SCSI/RAID Host Controller (the manufacturer for this is "standard mass storage controllers")
and
WinXp Promise SATA378 IDE controller

I actually had problems even getting the hard drive recognized at all during install, but when booting from the rescue disk it installed the drivers and it worked out.

Perhaps there is still a problem with the driver? If so how could I install corrected drivers?

Thanks for the help and sorry for the delay.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 24th May 2006, 01:36 PM
giulix Offline
"Fixed" by (vague) request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GMT+ 1
Posts: 2,950
Mmmh... not familiar with that chip. Here's an up-to-date status report.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24th May 2006, 10:21 PM
nejode Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maturín, Venezuela
Posts: 11
Hi...

Have you tried running (as root!) "mount -t ntfs(or vfat?) /dev/sda1 /mnt/Windows" without the "-r -o umask=0222" parameters? Those are ok for fstab.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27th May 2006, 08:06 AM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
Thank you for the response but
No luck:

[root@Jason ~]# mount -t vfat /dev/sda4 /mnt/FatPartition/
mount: /dev/sda4 is not a valid block device

Thanks for any further help.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27th May 2006, 08:59 PM
jshaev Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16
If I create the partition and filesystem from parted I get this when trying to mount:

[root@Jason /]# mount -t vfat /dev/sda4 /mnt/FatPartition/
mount: /dev/sda4 already mounted or /mnt/FatPartition/ busy

But I know it's not mounted because:

[root@Jason ~]# mount -l
/dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 on / type ext3 (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
/dev/dm-1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) [/boot]
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw)
automount(pid2161) on /net type autofs (rw,fd=4,pgrp=2161,minproto=2,maxproto=4)/dev/hda on /media/DVD_VIDEO type udf (ro,noexec,nosuid,nodev,uid=500)

so what would make /mnt/FatPartition busy?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27th May 2006, 09:19 PM
xstation Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 20
boot problems with fc5

I have fc5 on menu like so



but starts to boot as far as blue screen last thing i see is booting fisrt time configuration the blue screen stays the same see the arrow but cannot move it.

the menu;lst entry looks like this in the menu;lst
title Fedora Core (2.6.15-1.2054_FC5)
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 ro root=LABEL=/1 rhgb quiet
initrd /boot/initrd-2.6.15-1.2054_FC5.img


now the menu.lst file from which the above entry was copied is not a fedora os its linux but not fedora.

the actual menu.lst in the fedora 5 os looks like this :

default=0
timeout=5
splashimage=(hd0,2)/boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz
hiddenmenu
title Fedora Core (2.6.15-1.2054_FC5)
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 ro root=LABEL=/1 rhgb quiet
initrd /boot/initrd-2.6.15-1.2054_FC5.img

now how should the the entry in the menu.lst file from which fedora 5 will boot lokk like is the above correct?

what does get as far as it does on booting but does not make it to the log in screen?



xstation
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
block, device, valid

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not a Valid Block Device? Tux_in_Redhat Hardware & Laptops 0 10th April 2007 08:19 PM
USB Flash: not a valid block device ssaady Hardware & Laptops 0 16th June 2004 09:21 AM


Current GMT-time: 04:00 (Monday, 24-11-2014)

TopSubscribe to XML RSS for all Threads in all ForumsFedoraForumDotOrg Archive
logo

All trademarks, and forum posts in this site are property of their respective owner(s).
FedoraForum.org is privately owned and is not directly sponsored by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Term of Use | Posting Guidelines | Archive | Contact Us | Founding Members

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

FedoraForum is Powered by RedHat
Kerman - Imperia Photos - Chivasso Photos