upgraded to ubunyu 23.10 and exransion drives no longer works

[wss7819]

When I use the mount script, the icons on the desktop go away and it appears as if there is little or no response in terminal, as it move to the next line and prompts.

the umount script brings the icons back with terminal giving little or no response.

In the disks (drive by my error) program it shows the mount and umount

In file manager I am unable to locate either disk after being mounted and I am receiving the same error message as before.

Could I not go to 23.04 and try to convert the ntfs to what is needed? I don't know if it is possible, just wondering.

I am unsure as to why any of the disks are in a format not native to Linux, it is not something I did at will.

[wss7819]

When I use the mount script for both drives:
-Icon drops off desktop and file manager
-Disks program show as mounted
-unable to locate disks
-unable to access drives


Using the umount script:
-the icons return to
-receive error message when I try to open disk

[wss7819]

3rd attempt to reply:


When I use the mount script for both drives:

-Icon drops off desktop and file manager
-Disks program show as mounted
-unable to locate disks
-unable to access drives


Using the umount script:
-the icons return to
-receive error message when I try to open disk

[wss7819]

When I use the mount script for both drives:
-Icon drops off desktop and file manager
-Disks program show as mounted
-unable to locate disks
-unable to access drives


Using the umount script:
-the icons return to
-receive error message when I try to open disk


4th attempt to reply

[yancek]

mount: /dev/sda1/: can't find in /etc/fstab.

When you get that error, you need to add the filesystem type, example in post 20 above. Your ntfs filesystem is corrupted and you need at the very minimum, to run chkdsk from windows. Until you fix that, you are not likely to be able to access these partitions. You should be able to download a windows iso file and put it on a usb to boot and select a repair option to run chkdsk.

[TheFu]

When I use the mount script, the icons on the desktop go away and it appears as if there is little or no response in terminal, as it move to the next line and prompts.

What mount script? Assume we are stupid, since if you are extremely clear, we don't know. Also, we cannot read your mind.

the umount script brings the icons back with terminal giving little or no response.

What umount? I must have missed that.

In the disks (drive by my error) program it shows the mount and umount

Forget the GUI. That won't help you. Stick in a terminal and use only the specific mount commands provided, in the order provided.

In file manager I am unable to locate either disk after being mounted and I am receiving the same error message as before.

When the mount commands work (there are 2), those file systems should be mounted under /mnt/. Go look there.

Could I not go to 23.04 and try to convert the ntfs to what is needed? I don't know if it is possible, just wondering.

I am unsure as to why any of the disks are in a format not native to Linux, it is not something I did at will.

When drive makers ship their drives, they routinely preformat them to NTFS since 90+% of the world will need that. As Linux users, we are expected to know this (magically) and setup the type of file system we want ourselves BEFORE we start using the storage.

There is no "in-place conversion" from NTFS to any other file system. You'll have to copy off all the data you want to keep, wipe the NTFS file system, then create a new ext4 file system, mount it using ext4 mount options (which aren't complex like NTFS) and copy the data back. Also, normal Unix file permissions will be used when NTFS is gone, so if you haven't learned those in the last 10 yrs, you'll want/need to learn them. Right after a native Linux file system is created, only root can access the mounted storage. This is by design - i.e. not a bug. It is common to chown an entire data partition (really the file system), if there's only 1 userid that needs access. This needs to be done once.

BTW, while you are doing these things, you really should change the labels on both drives so they don't have spaces. I suspect the spaces used in the labels is one of the problems getting the mount to work. If a label has spaces in the name, you'll need to quote the entire label in all commands, like the mount. Best to just change the label to be unique, but meaningful to you. For some example labels, here are some of mine:
videos-scratch, rom-2tb, R2-Array, Back2, rom-1tb, RAID1-Array, home01 .... note that none have spaces. That's so I don't need to use quotes. If I want to mount using the label, I'd use

sudo mount -t ext4     LABEL=rom-2tb   /mnt/rom-2tb

That assumes ext4 is the file system. I really don't mount storage long-term to /mnt/. /mnt is meant to be used for temporary administrative work.

You are probably used to seeing partitions/file systems show up under /media/. Mounting storage under that area is controlled by Gnome programs. Best to avoid it so that your mounts and whatever the gnome-guys decide to do next don't conflict. For a few years, the conflicts were bad. Bad enough that I just don't use /media for anything. I don't use Gnome and don't allow automatic mounting of random storage (using gvfs or gio) to my systems for security reasons.

The idea that anyone could walk up, plug in a USB storage device and it would be mounted scares me. All sorts of really bad things can happen with that enabled. Of course, lots of other people decide that the convenience of that is worth the risks (or they don't really know the risks). I can think of all sorts of nasty things that could be done with that capability, I promise. I could probably trick you into doing something that would open a reverse shell over the internet back to one of my machines. When I was teaching beginning Linux, I had the class copy/paste some code from a website to make a point. The code that was displayed wasn't the actual commands being run. Over 50% of the college students did it. The other 50% weren't really paying attention and only 1 person (there's always 1-2 in every class) caught my sinister plan.

All HDDs fail, eventually. My goal is to move my data off the most likely drive to a newer drive BEFORE any failure causes issues.

[MAFoElffen]

I'm going to answer these, then I'm out of here for the night. Please watch how you come across to others... I am very proud, and protective of the people here.

As both TheFu and I posted our commands to mount, we were being kind. We didn't want to flat-out tell you that you were wrong. If you look at what you did that didn't work... when it threw that error...
Quote:

mount: /dev/sda1/: can't find in /etc/fstab.

That error comes up because your commands were wrong. They were missing the mountpoint. If you issue a 'mount' commend without a mountpoint, it assumes that it must be defined in your /etc/fstab file, and since it isn't, it told you that it was not defined in your fstab file. Do you understand that error now?

Now for your other questions

-Icon drops off desktop and file manager

Yes, because they were mounted into the filesystem at /mnt/drive1 and /mnt/drive2. That was a success, not a failure as you wrote that like... That is how that came across in your posts.

-Disks program show as mounted

Well... Yes they were mounted successfully. Problem solved right? LOL

-unable to locate disks
-unable to access drives

Only because you didn't navigate to where they were mounted-- At /mnt/drive1 & /mnt/drive2.. Look at the commands that told them to mout at those mountpoints...

Try to understand what the commands are doing by looking in the Man Pages for each. As an old adage about Unix and Linux commands went: The only 'man' you need, is at the commandline (man <command>)... If you still do not understand, then paste them into:
https://explainshell.com/

Please watch how you address people and how many times you bump a thread. When you do respond to something someone said, please either quote what you are responding to, or say who that is. We shouldn't have to guess.

You bumped the thread 5 times, in 1 hour, all 3 hours after my last post last night. I had to sleep. By Forum Policy, you are allowed to bump a thread once in 24 hours waiting for a response... You should be happy the Moderators didn't flag you.

There was no "script". There were commands given, that expected feedback from you on how they went. Guess what = they worked. That is just misunderstanding, inexperience, and not knowing the nomenclature on your part.

"Communication" is the mutual understanding between "all" parties.

Which also means that we need to watch how we recommend something to you, that we ensure you understand. Because it is very clear that we need to ensure you understand what is going on, and can recognize when things are going wrong, or that they are working like they should.

The 2 drive's filesystems are now repaired, and are now mountable, at least by manual commands.

So what I see you need to do, is to explain to these other Members what you need next. What doesn't work for you, and what you should do to prevent this from happening again.

I'm tired. I need to rest and recover from a few things. I'm sorry for being short, but I feel it had to be said.

Good night.

[wss7819]

You bumped the thread 5 times, in 1 hour, all 3 hours after my last post last night

I am sorry if I caused you to miss some sleep. I was not aware I was bumping the thread, it was late and after I completed a response and posted it, nothing happened on my end. I was never aware of a 3rd page being created until I checked the thread the next day. I apologize for the headache over that.

Yes, because they were mounted into the filesystem at /mnt/drive1 and /mnt/drive2. That was a success, not a failure as you wrote that like... That is how that came across in your posts.

I still don't know where you are referring to, just where is /mnt? If I have three disks/drives and one is mounted should it show in the file manager program. If not why? Because that is how my 3 disks/drives appear before I manually mount another disk/drive in terminal. After terminal mounts the remaining two disks/drives the icon showing them to be apart of the system are no longer showing anywhere. Yet at the same time the internal disk/drive icon is still show that disk/drive as part of the system and accessible to file manager for me to work with. I am confused as to how the disk/drive is removed from the file manager and desktop ( yes, I know your desktop may not have a bar on the left hand side showing favorite pinned programs, running programs and I have pinned the disk/drives to the bar as well.)

I guess what I am saying is how can it be a success if I can no longer have access after mounting /dev/sda1 or /dev/sdb1, by success I mean seeing any type of file structure or error message or warning about that which I am attempting to open.

[QUOTE] Your ntfs filesystem is corrupted and you need at the very minimum, to run chkdsk from windows. Until you fix that, you are not likely to be able to access these partitions. You should be able to download a windows iso file and put it on a usb to boot and select a repair option to run chkdsk./QUOTE]

Just how do you know my files are corrupted?

I was able to have all 3 drives/disks scanned by a windows program and they were all ok. I used the that are part of the boot set-up (diagnostics) when HP (Hewitt Packard)first starts up, after I press the power button and the system starts coming on line.

I will need to find a way to check the external, expansion and internal drives from another version of ubuntu, but I will check into that later.

As both TheFu and I posted our commands to mount, we were being kind. We didn't want to flat-out tell you that you were wrong. If you look at what you did that didn't work... when it threw that error...

I am unaware of what the "FU" is.

I am sorry if I was saying scripts instead of commands. I was at a loss for words when I was trying to explain myself.

The last sentence does not make sense as to what you are attempting to relay to me.
I have been questioning that error message from day one and getting nowhere near to a resolution for what it means or what I need to do to correct the problem .
MY purpose for this is because 23.10 didn't want to move the files and folders when I installed it and if I recall correctly I received a message from 23.10 that I could do this step later. So I didn't worry about it then.

Well... Yes they were mounted successfully. Problem solved right? LOL

So, a successful mount is a mount where a disk/drive is mounted yet unavailable for any other purpose. My purpose from the start was and is to gain access to my files and folders I backed up in an earlier version of ubuntu.

Only because you didn't navigate to where they were mounted-- At /mnt/drive1 & /mnt/drive2.. Look at the commands that told them to mout at those mountpoints...

I do not see where /mnt/drive1 and /mnt/drive2 are located. I have not seen an address that contains /mnt/drive1 or /mnt/drive2 within it. In all of my work here that has never been seen by me and I would think I would recall such an address.
Mount/mountpoints ? How does one access, move and edit files held within a disk/drive at the mount point? By files I mean my private folders and my back-up folders, which I created in an earlier version of ubuntu?

Did I ever say I had a clear set of fundamental skills working with Linux? I believe I said the opposite.

So what I see you need to do, is to explain to these other Members what you need next.

First I am going to somehow back-up what I have on the internal hard drive and then create Linux formatted thumb-drive and put a version 20.0? of ubuntu on it and wipe the drive, so I can somehow repair the corruption/errors/failures of the drive.
Once I do that I can start the process of locating my freshstart program for ubuntu 20.0? and then install it upon my internal hard drive.
That should leave me with the ability to once more access my corrupted, error ridden failing disk/drive that I could always access through earlier versions of ubuntu than I currently have.

Thus letting us able to call this thread solved.

BTW: I live out in the sticks about 30-35 miles from nowhere and don't usually randomly take commands from others and willingly input them into my system.
I do check around and see if the commands have any issues which I should be aware of.
People do not come out this far very often, other than the mailman and the box is down the road.
I do very little if any social media and have lots more chores to do than I am able to do.
Getting old and getting the chores done have their downsides, not many, but enough to keep a persons mind active.
As I said before this disk/drive issue has put me behind and others are waiting for me to finish my part.

Well let me get to working on my new path forward and unless I have some major issues with what I lined out above, you 'all shouldn't hear from me for a long time out.

SeeYa, W

OH, you don't have to respond to my remarks above, I'll be working on something and won't be looking for one anyway. Besides with the version of ubuntu I'll be using, any commands or suggestions probably won't work with it.

[TheFu]

I do not see where /mnt/drive1 and /mnt/drive2 are located. I have not seen an address that contains /mnt/drive1 or /mnt/drive2 within it. In all of my work here that has never been seen by me and I would think I would recall such an address.
Mount/mountpoints ? How does one access, move and edit files held within a disk/drive at the mount point? By files I mean my private folders and my back-up folders, which I created in an earlier version of ubuntu?

In the file manager, after a file system is correctly mounted via the mount cmd or fstab, it doesn't get a separate button on the left. It only appears like any other local directory. Do you understand that directories are hierarchical?
/ is the top of all directories and all storage.
/mnt/ is 1 level deep.
/home/wss7819 is the HOME directory for username, wss7819. (I'm simplifying here, there are exceptions).
So when we say that /mnt/drive1 and /mnt/drive2 are mounted, that also says exactly where you should look for the storage for each. Under /mnt/drive1 and under /mnt/drive2. You can use the file manager to get there and mark those directories as "Favorites", I suppose. I don't really use file managers.

I think the person posting that the file systems were corrupted was making an educated guess. It may have been true and it may have been corrected when you got chkdsk to run on them. Or it may not have been true. We'll never know.

What we do know is that the drives are mounted now, assuming you didn't reboot. After each reboot, you'll either want to have the commands in post #20 handy to mount the storage again
OR
you'll want to convert (or get help converting) those lines into the required lines to add to the fstab file so the file systems are mounted automatically at boot.

As to the real root problem for why things don't work like they did with prior versions of Ubuntu, I can only guess that the Gnome people changed their file manager and gio or gvfs programs. I call those "fake mounts", because they don't do everything that real mounts do, don't provide the same controls over mount options and definitely are slower for storage access than real mount methods. Had you been using the fstab method all this time, nothing would have changed between releases.

The fstab file is extremely stable and hasn't changed much since 1993, thought in the early 2000s, they did make a push for /dev/sda1 like device names to be replaced using UUIDs. I strongly prefer using LABELs, which are more human friendly. The sda1 part can change at every reboot. The name is based on the order that the storage device is "found" by the Linux kernel at boot, so if one drive is slower than the other and that changes for any reason, then the drive names would likely swap. It is strongly recommended NOT to use device names, like "sda1" in mount commands for that reason. I tried to show a method in post #26 to use LABEL for mounting instead.

But it seems you never saw any of my posts or blocked them somehow.