In the WRONG place. Please, please, please do not "TOP-POST". Fixed!
>> Probably you forgot to put "noauto" in the fstab line for the zip.
> I used to use supermount in the fstab but I also tried to use the
> 'traditional way' with or without 'noauto' option. Unfortunately the
"Tried"? What does that mean? Did you or didn't you? "Noauto" is the
one and only correct option.
Quote:> behaviour was exactly the same.
That's not possible.
Quote:> I also tried to remove the reference to /dev/sdc4 from fstab. This
Then if that has some effect, it implies that you did NOT use
the "noauto" option, because the meaning of that option is to
render the line invisible at bootup.
Quote:> time there was no problem at boot time but I was not able the mount
Just so, so please do it again, correctly this time. The line should
/dev/sdc4 /mnt/zip auto noauto 0 0
(you can replace the "auto" with "vfat" or "ext2" depending on what
type of FS you have on it - I left you with the scanning choice).
Quote:> the zip drive manually.
What you can and cannot do is not of interest. It's what the system can
and cannot do that is of interest. Just show the response to
mount /dev/sdc4 /mnt/zip
Quote:> I always received the message:
> mount: /dev/sdc4 is not a valid block device
Well, the message is useless without the command that caused it! But in
that case I would say that you do not have the driver for the zip
loaded. Does your bootup sequence include "modprobe imm" (or whatever
the driver for your zip is?). And did you check to see that the driver
was loaded and that /proc/scsi/scsi was populated?
BTW - the message is NOT one I would expect from a mount command.
It should say .. OR ... something something. It doesn't know what the
state of affairs is just from the error it got.
Quote:> Some more details:
> in /proc/scsi/scsi:
> Host: scsi2 Channel:00 ID:00 Lun:00
> Vendor: IOMEGA Model: ZIP 100
This is a real scsi device? Or is adapter two some emulator?
Quote:> in /dev/:
> /dev/sdc4 -> scsi/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part4
> brw------- 1 root root 8, 4 date time part4
This merely shows that your links are in order, and I think you are
using devfs. So the fact that the latter target exists means that the
device is OK. So you must have written the mount command wrongly. Let
Quote:> Any idea what can be wrong here?
Not without more data. It looks like NOTHING is wrong and that the
error is somewhere between keyboard and chair ...!