TCL is not seeing my Western Digital 1TB usb hard drive

[tinypoodle]

In this case it might be preferable to name the mount point /mnt/sdb1 (do not rename any mount point while anything is mounted on it).

And if you want to go the safe way, until you fix everything it might be preferable to mount read only.

[docsulo]

In this case it might be preferable to name the mount point /mnt/sdb1 (do not rename any mount point while anything is mounted on it).

OK but to create a mount point sdb1 don't I have to create a folder called sdb1?  If I try to do that it asks if I want to overwrite the already existing sdb1 (which is the drive itself I think).

I could call the folder it mounts to anything (ie - windows, NTFS, etc) no?

[tinypoodle]

Theoretically yes, but how particular apps would play along with it is a different issue.

If /mnt/sdb1 already exists you could just mount it there instead of /mnt/sdb

[docsulo]

Theoretically yes, but how particular apps would play along with it is a different issue.

If /mnt/sdb1 already exists you could just mount it there instead of /mnt/sdb

OK that makes sense.

Thanks.

[gerald_clark]

The -t fstype tells mount which mount binary to use.
In this case, '-t ntfs-3g' means use /usr/local/bin/mount.ntfs-3g.
/dev/sdb1 should not work, as /dev/sdb1 does not exist.

[docsulo]

The -t fstype tells mount which mount binary to use.
In this case, '-t ntfs-3g' means use /usr/local/bin/mount.ntfs-3g.
/dev/sdb1 should not work, as /dev/sdb1 does not exist.

Interesting.  Any possibilities on why it is working?

[tinypoodle]

The -t fstype tells mount which mount binary to use.
In this case, '-t ntfs-3g' means use /usr/local/bin/mount.ntfs-3g.
/dev/sdb1 should not work, as /dev/sdb1 does not exist.

Interesting.  Any possibilities on why it is working?

This is a technical forum, not an oracle or prophecy forum; did you run testdisk?

And better make that "appears to be working"

[docsulo]

This is a technical forum, not an oracle or prophecy forum; did you run testdisk?

And better make that "appears to be working"
[/quote]

Haven't run testdisk yet.  Playing around with my mounted drive.  Played two videos, read a pdf and moved some files to a local folder.  So it IS working unless by "appears" you mean I'm seeing things.  And I'm not asking for oracles - someone said it shouldn't work and IT DOES. 

Not sure why people get so snide on these forums.  It's really unappealing and probably accounts for many people just going back to what they already use.

[tinypoodle]

By "appears to be working" I mean there is no guaranty for safe functioning of software accessing this disk and preservation of data.
(That's why I suggested to mount read only, to limit risks)

Unappealing is to persist to ask questions which could not find any answer without the required troubleshooting.

[docsulo]

Unappealing is to persist to ask questions which could not find any answer without the required troubleshooting.

Ugh.

Let's see - I wanted to mount a usb hardrive.

I was told to reformat the drive and create partitions.

NTFS drives automatically have a partition.  

The partition on my drive exists because other operating systems can see it.

Finally I got an answer on how to mount it - after a bunch of irrelevant stuff.

Once I got it to mount and I showed the command I used - I was told it was not possible to mount it using the command I used.

I asked - If it is not possible then why is it mounted then?

Not sure what your issue is and...

I'm not sure what trouble shooting you're suggesting I should do when my drive mounts now (since I now know that I need to have an extension installed in order to mount it).  And if by troubleshooting you mean testdisk - well - I'm not sure why I need testdisk when my partition is intact.  Can you give me a reason or should I just figure out what you mean through more troubleshooting?  But even if you give me a reason why I absolutely need to run testdisk, I can't see how my question of "why is it mounting with that command if it's not possible to mount with that command?" has anything to do with troubleshooting.  But hey that's just me.

[gerald_clark]

NTFS drives do not automatically have a partition.
You are the one who showed us that sdb was unpartitioned.
How did it suddenly sprout a partition, I don't know.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are not giving
accurate answers to the questions being asked.
Without accurate answers, the recommendations given cannot
be correct.

You were not told to re-format your drive.
Your incomplete and false information led to the true statement
that a drive needs to be partioned and a filesystem created before
TC will offer it for mounting.

I am happy that you now have it working, but will offer no further assistance
because I cannot trust that information you provide is correct and do not wish to
be party to any damage that may occur.

[tinypoodle]

+1   

[docsulo]

NTFS drives do not automatically have a partition.
You are the one who showed us that sdb was unpartitioned.
How did it suddenly sprout a partition, I don't know.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are not giving
accurate answers to the questions being asked.
Without accurate answers, the recommendations given cannot
be correct.

I realize I should have said that it was NTFS from the start.  That was a mistake that may have sidetracked replies.  But as to the partition - I had no idea that it didn't show a partition when I printed out what was asked of me.  I thought it DID - the drive appeared and therefore I thought it was there (with partition) and just not mounting.

However I did say I formatted it on Windows XP.  An IT friend of mine says:

You are saying you made this disk under Windows XP, there is NO WAY in windows XP to format a DISK (and not a partition) with NTFS, so you MUST HAVE A PARTITION ON IT. If you dont, you nuked it.

Anyway.  I appreciate you directing me to ntfs-3g.  

Whether you choose to help me with future problems or not is (of course) your choice. Just know that I am the average beginner user (slowly moving to intermediate) of Linux and I will let you know that if you treat the average user like me with the level of condescension your message implies while dealing with someone like myself who doesn't fully understand everything that happens under the Linux hood - then you will most likely lose the interest of the cross-section of the community I represent.   Maybe that's the point.  I don't know.

[tinypoodle]

There are 2 basic probabilities:

1. There is a software bug somewhere which inhibits:
     A: fdisk from correctly recognizing the partitions of both your hard disks
     B: possibly mounting in a standardized way.

In this case it would be a matter of bug reporting.

2. Neither of your two hard disks has a correct partition table.

In this case it would be a matter of correction.

Hacks or workarounds - even if they seem to be successful - do not change anything about upper.

[docsulo]

There are 2 basic probabilities:

1. There is a software bug somewhere which inhibits:
     A: fdisk from correctly recognizing the partitions of both your hard disks
     B: possibly mounting in a standardized way.

From the second printout it looks like fdisk works fine.

2. Neither of your two hard disks has a correct partition table.

Here's the full printout (it looks like I just didn't wait for the whole report to complete before I copied and pasted the first time) - I don't know what all the "loop" stuff is - can you direct me to a resource where I can find out: 

tc@box:/mnt/sda7$ fdisk -lu

Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581808 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks  Id System
/dev/sda1   *          63      112454       56196  de Unknown
/dev/sda2          112455   143524709    71706127+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda3       305235000   312576704     3670852+ db Unknown
/dev/sda4       143524771   268863839    62669534+  5 Extended
/dev/sda5       143524773   155814434     6144831  82 Linux swap
/dev/sda6       155814498   217375514    30780508+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda7       217375578   268863839    25744131  83 Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Disk /dev/loop0: 0 MB, 8192 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 16 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop0 doesn't contain a valid partition table
fdisk: can't open '/dev/ramzswap0': Permission denied

Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks  Id System
/dev/sdb1              63  1953520064   976760001   7 HPFS/NTFS

Disk /dev/loop10: 0 MB, 77824 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 152 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop10 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop20: 0 MB, 405504 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 792 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop20 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop30: 0 MB, 53248 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 104 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop30 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop40: 0 MB, 233472 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 456 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop40 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop50: 0 MB, 196608 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 384 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop50 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop60: 0 MB, 335872 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 656 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop60 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop70: 0 MB, 352256 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 688 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop70 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop80: 0 MB, 327680 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 640 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop80 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop90: 0 MB, 106496 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 208 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop90 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop100: 0 MB, 32768 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 64 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop100 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/loop110: 0 MB, 16384 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders, total 32 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Disk /dev/loop110 doesn't contain a valid partition table