jbjonas Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Has anybody else experienced this problem? I haven't seen any mention of it in the forums... Maybe I'm not searching well enough. I have a dual boot system (with XP) set up with little problems. My XP install has 3 NTFS partitions, but OSX will mount them in different orders after each reboot. Sometimes, one or two of them won't show up at all, and when I mount them manually (mount_ntfs etc.) they show up as ejectable mounts... I found a utility called Desktility that will rearrange them into proper order on login (on the desktop I mean, and only if they are all there), so I can deal with that part, but a lot of the time one of the NTFS drives just won't show up. The only way I have to make it appear properly is to restart until it does. Relaunching the finder doesn't work (except to put them out of order again ) and logging out and back in doesn't help either. The only thing that I have noticed, when going to mount it manually, is that after each reboot OSX seems to assign each drive in a different order. Sometimes in /dev/ I'll get: disk0 disk0s1 disk0s5 disk1 disk1s1 disk2 disk2s1 or sometimes I'll get other variations like: disk0 disk0s1 disk1 disk1s1 disk1s5 disk2 disk2s1 Can anyone make sense out of this? I would expect OSX to assign the drives as devices in some order based on how they show up on my SATA and ATA bus. I don't get it. If anyone has had this issue, or has any ideas (can I manually define my drives in OSX somehow?) I would really appreciate the help. This constant restarting is driving me mad! Oh- I should say that of course the partitions all show up (and in different orders) in Disk Utility. Also I had this same problem with 10.4.1 before I reinstalled with 10.4.3 Thanks. Edit: I've done some searching on here, and seem similar complaints about automounting drives, but I haven't seen anyone with the same problem of OSX assigning different device names at each boot, otherwise I would define the mounts manually... Help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Has anybody else experienced this problem? ... My dual boot system only has one XP and one OSX partition, so I haven't seen this ... but I see that my G5 which has multiple disks assigns /dev/whatever to the disks in any sort of seemingly random order when it boots. Since they show on the desktop with their labels, it's no big deal but if I wanted to write code that accessed the raw devices by device name it would be a pain. You could try adding a sleep xx delay to the rc before it gets around to mounting the filesystems because it might be that some drives are ready before others so they get allocated a label first? Or add lines that mount a device, sleep, mount, sleep, in the order you want. That might work, don't know. It wouldn't help the vanishing devices though. Or maybe it would if you explicitly mount them in rc. I have long grown weary of multi-disk Windows systems suddenly reallocating drive letters without warning and stuffing things up. Not very often, but often enough to be a pain, particularly when you plug in a USB device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbjonas Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 At least in windows you can go into Disk Management and change the letters manually if that happens. On my previous install, I edited the rc to remove all the mounts and then reassign them, but I had two problems. 1. One of the drives is the OSX partition, so I don't want to (or can't?) unmount it. 2. I can't even make a script, because of my 3 NTFS drives, 2 are partitions on the same physical disk, and since they get assigned willy nilly I never know which disk has the diskXs5 on it. Arrrrrrgh! maybe I need to figure out some logical pattern of command that will fix the situation in rc in all of the possible permutations of device assignments..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I just realised that my comment 'mount - sleep - mount - sleep' could be taken quite out of context! You know what I meant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbjonas Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 (man I was dying to use that new smily) *Bumpity-Bump* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkeymon Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Does OSX have some analouge to the /etc/fstab file found on most *nix-based systems that you could edit to prevent it from automounting the partitions on boot? That's what I would do. I would test it, but I'm still figuring out the best way to install it in the first place (damned SSE3 instruction set). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbjonas Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Does OSX have some analouge to the /etc/fstab Yes, it does have /etc/ftsab.hd, but its contents are: IGNORE THIS FILE. This file does nothing, contains no useful data, and might go away in future releases. Do not depend on this file or its contents. I don't know alot about this, ad I never messed with fstab in my linux or freeBSD installs... Someone out there please help??? What does OSX (or Darwin) use instead of fstab.hd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Bear Helms Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Beats me... Then again I have what shouldn't be problems but are. USB devices plugged in at boot seem to freeze the USB system, and no functionality for my ICH6 sound. Apple wins - I'll buy an iMac Core Duo when and if I can afford one. I like the OS enough to try and get it working better, and as I learn things from personal experience, I'm trying to add all I learn into the Wiki either in Technical FAQ or new sections as appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbjonas Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Hmmm, thanks for your analysis R. Bear Helms I suppose I should just be grateful that this is the worst of my problems I'm still open to anyone else's interpretation or suggestions, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts