| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1813.1 | join the club | GILBRT::BEAUREGARD | Roger Beauregard SHR1-3 | Tue Oct 25 1988 11:25 | 16 |
| Hey, maybe it's not my fault!!!
Paul,
I'm having a similar problem. My disk is partitioned 20,20,20,4
on a 65MB disk. I am also having problems recognizing the drives.
I called C Ltd. (my controller) and they informed me that the pointers
to L:FastFileSystem and such in the mountlist are CASE SENSITIVE!
However the file is named in the L: directory, the same should be
used in the mount list. I'm not convinced that this is my problem
but will check it out tonight. As far as C Ltd knows, there controller
works fine with 1.3 . I did have some of the partitions working
with the FFS until I soft booted the system. Now none of the partitions
appear to be working properly. WTF???
Roger
|
| 1813.2 | | MTWAIN::MACDONALD | WA1OMM 7.093/145.05/223.58 AX.25 | Tue Oct 25 1988 14:09 | 6 |
| Hmmm .. interesting about case sensitivity. But, dunno why it should
have a problem recognizing DH0: when I add the second drive. I'll
have to experiment some more over the weekend.
Paul
|
| 1813.3 | | MTWAIN::MACDONALD | WA1OMM 7.093/145.05/223.58 AX.25 | Tue Oct 25 1988 14:29 | 11 |
| Can anyone tell me what the correct device names are for two ST-506
drives installed with FFS?
I know there must be two partitions per drive. Assuming Disk 1 is
partitioned with DH0: and DH1:, how should Disk 2 be partitions
be named? Don't the SCSI devices own DH2: and DH3:?
Thanks.
Paul
|
| 1813.4 | Mount anything you want | TLE::RMEYERS | Randy Meyers | Tue Oct 25 1988 15:59 | 25 |
| Re: .1
I find it very easy to believe that the stuff to the left of the "=" in
a mountlist is case sensitive. I find it very hard to believe that the
stuff on the right hand side of the "=" (like L:FastFileSystem) is
case sensitive.
Re: .-1
You can call a partition anything that you want. The most common names
for the third and fourth partition are "DH2:" and "DH3:", but if you
want to break with tradition, you could call them "FRED:" and "SUE:".
I believe that with the Commodore controller, that the first partition
comes for free because they use the Expansion drawer and the BindDrivers
command to mount the first partition. (I don't own the Commodore controller,
this is just what I've gathered.)
However, all other partitions must be mounted using the Mount command, and
devs:Mountlist must contain entries for them.
Type out devs:Mountlist. Make sure it contains entries for your partitions.
Make sure that the mountlist entries look reasonable. Make sure that the
entries for the partitions have "Unit = 2" (assuming that the partitions
on the first drive have partition "Unit = 1").
|
| 1813.5 | when to "mount" | GILBRT::BEAUREGARD | Roger Beauregard SHR1-3 | Wed Oct 26 1988 09:26 | 23 |
| well, I was able to get FFS running on my system last night. I
duplicated the WB1.3 disk, copied over my mountlist,scsi.device
and xxxxx.device(specific to my controller). When I tried to mount
Dh0, i got a "not a dos disk" error. I reformated the drive with
the FFS switch and everything was ok after that. I then mounted
dh2, which contained the old image of dh0:, copied it to dh0: and
voila!.
The interesting thing is that my dh3: partition was also
indicating that it was not a dos disk. I reformated that partition
and it still wouldn't recognize it as a new FFS dos disk. The format
gave no indication of problems after completion. I do mount both
dh0 and dh3 in my startup sequence and this appears to be where
the original problem lies. Everytime I tried to format(FFS) the
dh3: partition, it would format ok but on reboot, would indicate
"not a dos disk". I tried 4 times! I then removed the "mount dh3:"
line from my startup sequence, rebooted, then issued the "mount"
and "format" commands, and everything worked fine after that. I
am confused as to why mounting a disk during the startup sequence
is any different than mounting it after. In either case, the same
"mount" command was used. Any guesses as to what's going on here?
Roger
|
| 1813.6 | assign... | HYSTER::DEARBORN | Trouvez Mieux | Wed Oct 26 1988 10:09 | 7 |
| Is it possible that you have two mountlists? One on Df0: and one
on DH0:? I ran into this with mine. My startup-sequence assigns
most directories to DH0:. Later in the sequence, it issues the
mount command for DH1:, DH2: and HF0:. Because DEVS:, LIBS:, L:,
C: etc. have been re-assigned, the computer is now using the mountlist
sitting in DH0:DEVS instead of DF0:DEVS to mount the additional
disks. I had to make sure that both mountlists match.
|
| 1813.7 | thought of that | GILBRT::BEAUREGARD | Roger Beauregard SHR1-3 | Wed Oct 26 1988 10:18 | 5 |
| I thought of that, both mountlists were the same as well as the
versions of "mount" and "format".
Roger
|
| 1813.8 | copy mountlist for security | JFRSON::OSBORNE | Blade Walker | Thu Oct 27 1988 09:04 | 8 |
| This is probably wasteful (of time), but I copy the df0:devs/mountlist
to the dh0:devs/mountlist in the df0:s/startup-sequence, just before
assigning DEVS: to the hard drive. It's not really necessary, but it
guarantees that the two mountlists match, and I only need to maintain one.
I've seen a lot of programmer time spent fixing the wrong program.
John O.
|