[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: remount removeable drive in Lenny - how? [solved]



On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 01:11:47PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 2009-07-19_18:57:40, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sun,19.Jul.09, 08:11:21, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > I have no objection to the status of hal as a required part of a
> > > standard desktop installation, but I do have a question as to how best
> > > to deal with a peculiar situation.
> > > 
> > > I have several USB hard drives (ones with rotating machinery inside,
> > > not solid state 'disks'). From time to time I need to perform format
> > > maintenance on one of them. In order to do this, I look in /dev to see
> > > what device name has been assigned to the drive, umount it, and do
> > > whatever - e2fsck, tune2fs, etc. But when I'm finish doing
> > > maintenance, how to I remount it without pulling the USB cable,
> > > waiting a while, and reinserting the cable? Is there a console command
> > > that I can type that avoids the extra wear on the fragile little
> > > connectors and plugs? I'm looking for something that retriggers the
> > > look-up of volume label and the creation of a mount-point in /media as
> > > was there before I started mucking about.
> > 
> > This thread seems interesting
> 
> Correction:
>   This thread *is* interesting
> > 
> > http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/re-detectmount-usb-hard-drive-623089/
> > 
> > (the first hit when I googled: hal redetect devices)
> > 
> 
> The solution is in the parted package. 

The kernel finds devices in paralell so the device order is random, 

udev fixes this with UUIDs and LABELs

Now, hal is deemed essential to Xorg and it messes up simple cases.

now we need parted to solve the problem of hal which was to solve the
problem of udev, which was to solve the kernel problem.

argh.

Of course, all these extra packages and systems will have general bugs
and the possibility of security bugs.

Did somebody call this progress?

Doug.


Reply to: