On 09/26/2018 07:51 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> the second is an
> external 2 Tbyte USB harddrive with a XFS file system that is a dd copy
> of a partition from another SL 7 machine (that is having difficulties --
> the partition is /home and the data is important).
Wouldn't a dd copy wipe out
from parted and
mount that I included in a related thread on this list: ( Re: parted
and mount ** EXTERNAL ** ) and thus I am not reproducing that
information here. What the outputs seemed to show was that parted found
that /dev/sdg was XFS and thus I assume "mountable&quo
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:38 AM Yasha Karant wrote:
>
> I have attempted to mount USB external formatted media on a SL7 system.
> One was a flash drive with a MS format (reported by parted as FAT32);
> the other was a 2 Tbyte hard drive XFS formatted on a different SL7
> system.
/dev/sdg1 would
serting a USB storage device,
>> one gets /dev/xyz, say, but there is no /dev/xyzN despite parted
>> reporting that the device does indeed have "MS" partitions as well as a
>> filesystem?
>>
>> On 09/26/2018 07:47 AM, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
>>> On 09
09/26/2018 08:34 AM, Howard, Chris wrote:
Why do parted and mount have this difference?
/dev/sdg1 ?
What he said.
/dev/sdg is the whole device
/dev/sdg1 is the first partition on that device.
Partitions have file systems. Partitions with file systems can be
mounted.
parted works on the who
> Why do parted and mount have this difference?
/dev/sdg1 ?
What he said.
/dev/sdg is the whole device
/dev/sdg1 is the first partition on that device.
Partitions have file systems. Partitions with file systems can be mounted.
parted works on the whole device.
mount works on the partiti
hard drive).
Why do parted and mount have this difference?
Yasha Karant
