Arch Linux hard disk naming

reddazz · 04-03-2005, 01:25 PM

I would like to checkout Arch Linux, but I am bit confused with the whole disk naming thing. I would like to install on /dev/hdb5 but Arch obviously names disks differently, so can you point me into the right direction.

dcdbutler · 04-03-2005, 05:26 PM

This partition (hdb5) will be recognised as
/dev/discs/disc1/part5
during Arch installation.

I'm sure you've seen it already, but in case you haven't the wiki for arch installation at archlinux.org is very good.

AxelFendersson · 04-03-2005, 08:22 PM

If you're careful not to install devfsd, and use udev and a 2.6 kernel, you should find that the proper device names are back once the system is installed and running.

dcdbutler · 04-03-2005, 08:53 PM

Just a quick question re devfs and udev. I'm running udev with the current 2.6 kernel. Why is that my devices are in the /dev/discs/disc...... format? Is there a trick to get them into the /dev/hda...... format we're all used to? - presumably I have to change the udev rules or something.

reddazz · 04-03-2005, 09:21 PM

Well, for some reason it won't install on that particular partition, I get an error that the installer could not mount /mnt. It will however install on /dev/hda1, but thats where my main distro is, so I can't overwrite that. I will have to try on another machine some other time.

AxelFendersson · 04-04-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcdbutler
Just a quick question re devfs and udev. I'm running udev with the current 2.6 kernel. Why is that my devices are in the /dev/discs/disc...... format? Is there a trick to get them into the /dev/hda...... format we're all used to? - presumably I have to change the udev rules or something.

Is devfsd installed? If so, then Arch will use that in preference to udev. Try running pacman -Q devfsd . If it gives you a version number, then it's installed and you aren't using udev.

If you don't have devfsd, then you may still have the /dev/discs/whatever structure, but all the devices should just be symlinks to the proper /dev/hd* devices. You can get rid of them altogether by disabling an option in the kernel (although there may be a way to do it with udev), but I wouldn't recommend it.

cs-cam · 04-04-2005, 07:37 AM

If you use the stock Arch kernel you also need to add a parameter to the kernel line in your Grub config. Read the wiki it has all sorts of great info in it.

AxelFendersson · 04-04-2005, 07:46 AM

I don't think that's necessary as long as you never install devfsd. The relevant part of /etc/rc.sysinit :

Code:

if [ -e /dev/.devfsd -a -x /sbin/devfsd ]; then
	# Looks like devfs is running, use it
	status "Starting DevFS Daemon" /sbin/devfsd /dev
elif [ -x /etc/start_udev -a -d /sys/block ]; then
	# We have a start_udev script and /sys appears to be mounted, use UDev
	status "Starting UDev Daemon" /etc/start_udev
else
	# Static /dev, our last resort
	status "Using static /dev filesystem" /bin/true
fi

If you haven't installed devfsd, then the first condition will be false, and udev will be used instead.

cs-cam · 04-04-2005, 10:02 PM

Ahh looks like that's the case then.

dcdbutler · 04-05-2005, 08:56 PM

Well, it turns out I was using devfs all along, not sure how that happened, must have been on autopilot during the installation.

Now, switched to udev on notebook and desktop so all is as it should be.
For anyone interested, here's a link explaining udev vs devfs

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/util...tplug/udev-FAQ

Cheers!

cs-cam · 04-05-2005, 10:38 PM

I just went through all my rc.* files, rc.d/functions and rc.d/network optimising it for my setup. Boots awful fast now, I love it

wrytin · 04-21-2005, 10:25 AM

it is a problem.my harddisk only has 5 partitions,but arch show me 6,so when i setup arch,i have to guess which no which yes.

AxelFendersson · 04-21-2005, 11:11 AM

I suspect one of them is an extended partition, with two logical partitions inside it.

reddazz · 04-21-2005, 11:50 AM

Does arch have a problem with extended partitions because it won't install on mine, but installs fine on a primary partition.

AxelFendersson · 04-21-2005, 03:22 PM

I don't think so. I've got it installed quite happily on a logical partition.