Adding Extra Hard Dics (ext3)

[nick]

Hi
Just found my harddrive is getting full, and have added new harddisc, HDB1 formatted ext3,
I would like to make this mountable and read/right

KDE bianca on HDA1, ext3 HDB1 (new), I also have SDA1

I do not really want to format it ntfs or fat
Nick

[telic]

Move /home to its own partition

------

[nick]

Hi Telic
Thanks, I did consider that, but I have two 80gb drives and home would need to be spread over both, I have over 75gb in home and would like at least 130gb in
home-IDE drives
I guess I will have to invest in some larger discs
Just tried dual booting with Fiesty and can access hda1 from there so I could wait until Cassandra comes out.
Nick

[NiksaVel]

Adding Extra Hard Dics

[scorp123]

Honi soit qui mal y pense

[nick]

Dear Mr. Moderater, could you please change title of question?
When you become a pensioner like me the old eysight deteriorates

Wish I was back on my old PDP in 1972
Nick

[scorp123]

Dear Mr. Moderater, could you please change title of question?

What's wrong with "extra hard dics"?

But seriously: If you really feel the title needs to be changed: You can do it yourself. That's what the "Edit" button is for. Everyone can edit their own postings.

I personally don't see the need as it is clear that you mistyped the word and actually meant "extra hard discs".

[Lolo Uila]

So is there an answer to this question?

I also added another Linux formatted hard drive and could not get it to show up. I searched and found a few other threads with similar questions, but no answers. I searched the Ubuntu forums as well, and didn't find any useful answers there either.

The mount command says the drive cannot be found. I tried editing fstab and the drive would mount, but it's owned by root and I can't use it.

After wasting too much time I tried formatting it NTFS, but it STILL wouldn't show up. I thought Mintdisk automatically mounted NTFS partitions? Why didn't this work?

I finally gave up and formatted it FAT32 and now I can use it, but it's pretty ridiculous that I had to waste several hours and finally fall back to an old DOS based file system just to add another hard drive.

I know Linux isn't Windows, but come on! It can't be that difficult to add a hard drive, can it? What am I missing here?

Thanks, Tim

[nick]

Hi
This works:
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32662.htm
I changed my disc using Gnome partion editor


Then started at:

mkdir /bigdog (I called it backup)

Having rebooted I still had to chown backup directory to nick, however it is slow.

Here is my fstab
# /dev/hda1
UUID=4915c35a-d0e2-41e2-b34c-6927621be9cb / ext3 defaults,errors=remount-ro 0 1
# /dev/hda5
UUID=d576c763-1d70-4d0b-884b-d8f64da5978a none swap sw 0 0
/dev/hdd /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0
/dev/hdc /media/cdrom1 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0
/dev/ /media/floppy0 auto rw,user,noauto 0 0
/dev/hdb1 /backup ext3 defaults 1 2

Any idea's how to give read/write to HDB1 to user?

NTFS is mounted by mintdisc as before reverting to this I used Gnome partition editor
and changed it to NTFS and after booting it showed up

Nick

[scorp123]

I tried editing fstab and the drive would mount, but it's owned by root and I can't use it.

Create a sub-directory on it and then give that sub-directory to your normal user account, e.g.

Code: Select all

sudo chown -R lolo:lolo /path/to/new/HD/sub-directory

Inside your own home directory, you can create a symbolic link:

Code: Select all

ln -s /path/to/new/HD/sub-directory /home/lolo/more-space

This would give you a sub-directory "more-space" inside your current home directory. From here onwards it's easy; just fill that other disk with whatever you wish.

I tried formatting it NTFS, but it STILL wouldn't show up.

You are aware that NTFS is a Microsoft invention? Why did you think this would help?? Linux is not Windows

I finally gave up and formatted it FAT32 and now I can use it

FAT32 sucks. 2 GB file size limit, it fragments and breaks easily ...

but it's pretty ridiculous that I had to waste several hours

Yes, it is ridiculous

and finally fall back to an old DOS based file system just to add another hard drive.

If you worked here you'd be fired for this

I know Linux isn't Windows, but come on! It can't be that difficult to add a hard drive, can it?

No, it's in fact very easy

What am I missing here?

You are still thinking in your old and inadequate Windows-ways. You still think:

• new drive = new drive letter ==> therefore: I need this "drive letter" to show up somewhere or else I can't use it

Start thinking UNIX-style. e.g. every disk is just a folder. And you the user define where you want to see this folder and what you do with it. It's just a folder. We can tell the system to auto-mount this "folder". And we can decide to create sub-folders inside this "folder" and give access to this sub-folder to the normal user account ... or not

All the drives are just a bunch of folder-trees ... and we define where we add new branches or not.

You were almost there.

[scorp123]

/dev/hdb1 /backup ext3 defaults 1 2
Any idea's how to give read/write to HDB1 to user?

This command is your friend:

Code: Select all

man mount

There are parameters such as uid= and gid= you can add as argument; but then "defaults" up there needs to be changed. e.g. the line could read something like this:

Code: Select all

/dev/hdb1       /backup  ext3    auto,rw,uid=100,gid=100     1 2

No guarantee about the correctness ... please read the man page.

Another idea could be what I already wrote in my other posting: as root create a subdirectory inside your new mount-point (= your new harddisk) and give that new sub-directory to your normal user account; create a symbolic link so that this new sub-directory shows up in your home folder. From here onwards it's just drag & drop + very easy

[nick]

Hi Scorp
As in http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32662.htm
(but using gparted), and your suggestion:

mkdir /backup
chown nick /backup/
With line on fstab left as:
/dev/hdb1 /backup ext3 defaults 1 2

Then created link on destop to /dev/hdb1/
This now gives HDB1 (formatted as ext3) on dektop, and opening device gives access to /backup

Saved me buying larger harddrive

Thanks-Nick

[scorp123]

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32662.htm

Good article. This is basically what I suggested too.

mkdir /backup
chown nick /backup/
With line on fstab left as:
/dev/hdb1 /backup ext3 defaults 1 2

Does this work between reboots? Because you left away some parameters I gave (e.g. chown -R ...) so chances are that everything underneath this mount-point is still owned by root.

Also: The problem I see here is this: What if something silly happens and you're all of a sudden forced to mount that harddrive somewhere else? Maybe on a new computer? Or on a new mount-point? Or maybe your computer breaks and you will be forced to put that disk into a friend's computer. The way you did that here all your files will be right there directly on the harddisk ... not only does it look ugly it might make rescue operations more difficult.

It would have been better if you had left everything "as is" and especially didn't change the ownership of the mount-point itself. Such things need to belong to root.

Instead this would have been better, IMHO:

1. mkdir /backup
2. With line on fstab left as: /dev/hdb1 /backup ext3 defaults 1 2
3. Test if it works, e.g. reboot the system
4. Once we're sure the harddisk gets mounted:

Code: Select all

sudo mkdir /backup/nick
sudo chown -R nick:nick /backup/nick

Then create a symbolic link to /backup/nick ... not /dev/hdb1 and not the mount-point (which still belongs to root) directly ...

The result would now be that if you ever mount the disk somewhere else or under extraordinary circumstances there would be a sub-directory with the name "nick" sitting there, making it obvious whose files the stuff inside this is (as opposed to having the disk cluttered with loose files as it probably is now in your example).

Don't get me wrong: This is just the admin inside of me who prefers to have stuff organised properly and prefers if people put their stuff in appropriate sub-directories and not clutter each disk directly with loose files

But hey, this is your system and I'm not its admin

[nick]

Hi Scorp
I can see your point, it does remount on boot up, (not sure why) but all previous commands were prefixed sudo. "Lost and found" folder has appeared.

Have changed as per your suggestion and rebooted again and all seems to work O.K. So now I know how to add extra ide hard DIC drive.

Many Thanks -Nick

[Lolo Uila]

I tried formatting it NTFS, but it STILL wouldn't show up.

You are aware that NTFS is a Microsoft invention? Why did you think this would help?? Linux is not Windows

Because I thought Mintdisk mounted NTFS partitions automatically. Any idea why this didn't work?

I finally gave up and formatted it FAT32 and now I can use it

FAT32 sucks. 2 GB file size limit, it fragments and breaks easily ...

Yes, I know. That's why I didn't want to use it, and only did it as a last resort.

You were almost there.

[sigh] but "almost" only counts in horseshoes... and sometimes hand grenades.

Thanks for the help. I'll give it a try when I get home tonight.

Aloha, Tim

[telic]

The maximum file size with FAT32 is 4GB. The maximum size for FAT16 is 2GB.

There's nothing particularly innovative about mounting or linking a disk to a folder -- e.g. the JOIN command under MS-DOS can assign an arbitrary directory/file path to a drive, and later versions of MS Windows have LINKD or MKLINK for similar function.

When all you believe is the hammer, all of your concerns will look like a nail.

-------

[scorp123]

The maximum file size with FAT32 is 4GB. The maximum size for FAT16 is 2GB.

It still sucks

There's nothing particularly innovative about mounting or linking a disk to a folder

Of course not. But tell this to all those Windows people who are still so focused on drive letters ...

the JOIN command under MS-DOS can assign an arbitrary directory/file path to a drive.

This dirty hack never worked reliably for me back in the dark ages when people used MS-DOS, PC-DOS and even highly exotic stuff such as DR-DOS And I think that this is precisely why almost nobody in the oh so wonderful "we own 99% of the desktop market" Microsoft world knows about this. Don't you think Microsoft would otherwise have made bigger marketing efforts? But they didn't ... because this thing rarely worked in a reliable fashion. So ... pssst ... better not tell anyone or they might think Microsoft is selling broken and buggy operating systems ....

BTW, UNIX (and Linux is a modern UNIX clone sort of) did this right from start back in 1969 MS-DOS was released way later in 1981 and the early versions were extremely far away from any of those nifty features you mention in your post

And guessing from all those many negative stories in circulation about how seriously bad Windows Vista is, I have to conclude Microsoft's software hasn't gotten any better

[telic]

But tell this to all those Windows people who are still so focused on drive letters ...

Yet the use of drive letters isn't a "dirty hack", nor is the syntax comparatively "inadequate". It's just different.

You trumpet Linux's superiority on the grounds of nomenclature. Okeydokey, but why do you minimize other forum users on such irrelevant basis? Your remark, "You are still thinking in your old and inadequate Windows-ways", is subjective and unnecessary.

What compels you to "enlighten" newcomers by mocking their current or past frame of reality? Knowledge can be passed along without verbal jabs at someone's past experience (or lack of particular experience).

------

[scorp123]

Yet the use of drive letters isn't a "dirty hack"

join is a "dirty hack". Please read again. I wasn't talking about drive letters being a "dirty hack".

You trumpet Linux's superiority

It's my personal opinion and personal preference, yes. Based purely on personal preference and without any scientific basis.

on the grounds of nomenclature

Others (e.g. some Microsoft fan boys I have the doubtful pleasure to know ...) trumpet Windows' superiority based on the desktop market share ... so what? We all got our preferences based on something.

Okeydokey, but why do you minimize other forum users on such irrelevant basis? Your remark, "You are still thinking in your old and inadequate Windows-ways", is subjective and unnecessary.

That was supposed to be a joke of sorts (based on the "superiority" of Linux ... seems you got that part?) and in no way meant in earnest (seems you missed that part?). OK, my sense of humor is .... ahemm ... different. But just in case anyone took this (too) serious: It wasn't meant in earnest.So if anyone feels hurt: my apologies.

Knowledge can be passed along without verbal jabs at someone's past experience (or lack of particular experience).

Really?

Are you familiar with the term "sarcasm"? You might want to look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Quote from there: "Because it is vocally oriented, sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form and is easily misinterpreted. "

So maybe you understand now that word "inadequate" is highly relative here. Someone's experience, be that with whatever OS, isn't "worthless" in any way. It's just that this old sarcastic backstabber here sometimes forgets that others might not understand his wicked sense of humor and not always appreciate his sarcasm

But OK, I could have done a better job highlighting what I really mean.

[Lolo Uila]

Ah that's just Scorp's way. He can be a little harsh sometimes, but he does put in a great deal of time and effort posting here to help others. His posts are usually helpful, in spite of their sting. Sure he could be nicer about it, but take a look at his avatar... does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

And in my case he was right. Even though I ended my post with "I know Linux isn't Windows..." I was, in fact, trying to treat it like Windows. And the sad part is, I actually knew about the everything is a folder thing. I have used Unix in the past, but it was a very, very long time ago. I've been using Windows for so long I think I killed off most of the brain cells that had my past Unix knowledge (and they say smoking is dangerous).

Soon after reading his post I had one of those Homer Simpson "D'OH!" moments as I realized my mistake (trying to mount the drive itself, rather than creating access to the drive).

Since I have forgotten more than I remember I'm sure there are more "D'OH!" moments on the horizon. So thanks to all for tolerating my noobness. The help is much appreciated.

Aloha, Tim

PS: The simplest way to do this is just create a folder on the desktop and mount the drive/partition to that folder.

Right-Click on desktop - Create Folder NewHD (or whatever you want to call it)
Then add a line to fstab
/dev/sda1 /home/trp/NewHD ext3 defaults 0 0
reboot... done!

Don't need to sudo or chown since you already own the rights to the stuff in the desktop. And no symbolic link needed since the folder is right there on the desktop. This is probably not the best method, but it's quick-n-easy.