| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:02 am Post subject: FAT32 137GB+ mounting problems. |
 |
|
I'm having some strange behavior trying to mount a 160GB that is partitioned FAT32. mount fails with:
| Quote: |
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdf1,
or too many mounted file systems
|
I've tried explicitly usting the '-t vfat' option for the filesystem type and myriad other options to mount, but fdisk reports the partition fine, and I have no trouble whatsoever mounting a 46GB FAT32 drive.
I'm stressed to find a missing kernel module that would cause something like this, since the modules for the promise controller (PDC20265) are pretty straightforward, and I had to upgrade to a newer kernel version to get it to even recognize at boot.
I admit I am quite the gentoo n00b, but I haven't been able to find any posts where thier mounting problems seem to be directly related to the drive being over the 137GB limit. I'm using XFS, so I'm running xfs-2.4.19-r2 (it would not even get past boot in r1). Any help/insights would be greatly appreciated.
Fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pilla
Bodhisattva
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7729
Location: Underworld
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, it's just about as easy to assume that someone is posting a dup as it is for someone to post one.
That FAQ is the first thing I read when I came onto these forums, and I would not have bothered to post anything if I hadn't been combing forums and newsgroups for the last 3 days looking for an answer; all of the the kernel options described in the FAQ are enabled.
Now I realize that I'm not as linux savvy as a lot of people, but I thought it was clear evidence that since I have absolutely no problems mounting other FAT32 partitions, with the exact same partition type reported from fdisk as the one that is problematic (vfat), that the drive's size is what is causing the problem.
The logical conclusion is that there is some quirk or issue that comes about during mounting of drives past the 137GB limit. I haven't been able to find *any* discussion of such a quirk, as every time when people have trouble with the limit, the issues get resolved once they get the kernel to recognize it and can properly report the partition in fdisk.
I'd very much appreciate drawing upon the body of knowledge that everyone here seems to have, especially gentoo specific issues, and I realize that probably 95% of the time it *is* because someone is stupid and hasn't checked the trivial case.
fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oniq
Guru
Joined: 02 Sep 2002
Posts: 597
Location: Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got an NTFS RAID thats 160gig and I am able to mount it fine.. I don't see why there should be any trouble mounting it if its FAT32 or otherwise..
_________________
open like a child's mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oniq
Guru
Joined: 02 Sep 2002
Posts: 597
Location: Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is this a RAID array? If so you are mounting the wrong device, its in /dev/atapiraid or something similar
_________________
open like a child's mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is this a RAID array? If so you are mounting the wrong device, its in /dev/atapiraid or something similar
|
No, it is not a RAID array. It's a single hard drive, which is another reason there seems to be a lack of discussion/interest  Almost every post I've seen in relation to mounting issues involved RAID's. I'm pretty stumped, I'm tempted to convert to NTFS just to see if that makes a difference, but I need write support from Linux, so I'd like to keep it FAT32.
One thing I've seen is that sometimes drives will fail to mount if there are bad sectors, but I've done full surface scans with no errors whatsoever. I'm pretty stumped.
fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Running fdisk:
| Code: |
Disk /dev/hde: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 5606 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hde1 * 1 4845 38917431 c Win95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hde2 4846 4858 104422+ 83 Linux
/dev/hde3 4859 4986 1028160 83 Linux
/dev/hde4 4987 5606 4980150 83 Linux
|
(dual boot parittion that mounts fine)
| Code: |
Disk /dev/hdf: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 19457 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdf1 * 1 19457 156288321 c Win95 FAT32 (LBA)
|
(large partition that doesn't mount)
I just tried dumping the data from the device using:
| Code: |
dd if=/dev/hdf1 of=/tmp/dump
|
and it reads off the device just fine, I ran strings on it and I could recognize snippets from data on that drive. So it very much seems an issue related to mount. Hope this helps.
fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Bodhisattva
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7729
Location: Underworld
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I thought this was a Dup, it would be in the Dups forums right now. Anyway, I thought that you could use that FAQ entry to check if your kernel configuration was OK.
Nice that you have read the FAQ, but I cannot understand how you expected me to know it. Sorry if I cannot help you.
| fannus wrote: | You know, it's just about as easy to assume that someone is posting a dup as it is for someone to post one.
That FAQ is the first thing I read when I came onto these forums, and I would not have bothered to post anything if I hadn't been combing forums and newsgroups for the last 3 days looking for an answer; all of the the kernel options described in the FAQ are enabled.
Now I realize that I'm not as linux savvy as a lot of people, but I thought it was clear evidence that since I have absolutely no problems mounting other FAT32 partitions, with the exact same partition type reported from fdisk as the one that is problematic (vfat), that the drive's size is what is causing the problem.
The logical conclusion is that there is some quirk or issue that comes about during mounting of drives past the 137GB limit. I haven't been able to find *any* discussion of such a quirk, as every time when people have trouble with the limit, the issues get resolved once they get the kernel to recognize it and can properly report the partition in fdisk.
I'd very much appreciate drawing upon the body of knowledge that everyone here seems to have, especially gentoo specific issues, and I realize that probably 95% of the time it *is* because someone is stupid and hasn't checked the trivial case.
fannus |
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drakonite
l33t
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Lincoln, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
You probably have, but just as one of those in-case-your-forgot things, have you formated the partition as fat32 yet?
I'm sure you know (but for those that don't) after you set up the partition, you have to format the filesystem on it before you can mount it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't find it now, but I read something suggesting a limit of around 140GB. Can you try making it a 120G partition to see if it matters?
Also, doesn't fat32 waste alot of space with large partitions? Last I recall, fat32 cluster sizes were 32k for large partitions.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drakonite
l33t
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Lincoln, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kanuslupus wrote: | | Also, doesn't fat32 waste alot of space with large partitions? Last I recall, fat32 cluster sizes were 32k for large partitions. |
Yes, you are right. fat32 can waste a LOT of space when the cluster size is big. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You probably have, but just as one of those in-case-your-forgot things, have you formated the partition as fat32 yet?
|
I'm pretty sure that the filesytem has been formatted to FAT32, I created the partition using WD's paritioning utility (this was before I could keep the kernel from panicking at boot with the drive installed) as FAT32, and Win2k reads the partition perfectly as FAT32. Just to be sure I dumped the first 100 bytes of the device to see the volume boot sector, and it seems to confirm that.
| Code: |
bash-2.05a# od -cN 100 /dev/hdf1
0000000 353 X 220 M S W I N 4 . 1 \0 002 @ \0
0000020 002 \0 \0 \0 \0 370 \0 \0 ? \0 377 \0 ? \0 \0 \0
0000040 202 212 241 022 \0 225 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 002 \0 \0 \0
0000060 001 \0 006 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0
0000100 200 \0 ) a 226 037 > N O N A M E
0000120 F A T 3 2 372 3 311 216 321 274
0000140 370 { 216 301
0000144
|
I also have a quick question, I'm wondering how much success is indicated by the fact that the drive is dumping properly? It seems at least this indicates that the drive *can* be read. As I mentioned before, I'm loathe to convert it to NTFS, and I'm willing to live with the limitations FAT32 has in exchange for greater interoperability.
fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gladbach
n00b
Joined: 15 Jun 2002
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had a similar issue w/ fat32 drive and a 160gig ata133 drive.
I can mount it just fine using:
/dev/hde1 /disk3 vfat umask=000,user,auto,rw 0 0
BUT, any data that I tend to write to it lasts for a day or two, then is corrupted, leaving the file, but its 0k in size.
I have a thread about it at https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=29691&highlight=
I just bought a new 120 gig drive, and plan on migrating the data over to it after formatting thenew one w/ ext3, then will repartition the original 160 w/ ext3 also.
I think, w/ drives this big, fat32 is just borked in linux. I spent 2 weeks looking around the net for a solution, w/o finding anything helpfull. and I am using a promise ultra133 tx2 ide card that came w/ the drive.
kev |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fannus
n00b
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I just reformatted the drive to NTFS and it worked first shot. Thanks for all the suggestions, I really do appreciate it a lot. I hate giving up on the FAT32 issue, and it really gets under my skin that it would make a difference, perhaps it is simply a bug that will get resolved in the near future. I very much agree that FAT32 seems to be "borked" for large drives
Hope this thread helps other people with similar problems.
fannus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drakonite
l33t
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Lincoln, NE
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does it not work at all for larger drives???
Or is it just if the partition is too big?
What I'm getting at is... .Does it work to make a few smaller partitions that are fat32? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
