Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:19:16AM +, thyme after thyme wrote: > > Charles and tomas, you were both right in your guesses. Thanks a billion > for the help! Glad you found it :) Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

grep sdc", works on it, too. I do it all the time because it filters out the (visual) noise. Every since I realized that, my chroot dismounts never fail. Prior to that, I was having to mostly reboot to dislodge a chroot that had some or another too "busy" to umount mount point tha

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

Jude DaShiell writes: > I wonder if blkid might be a bit more informative. I don't know, I usually run mount without arguments to see what's mounted or look in the file /proc/mounts.

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

Charles and tomas, you were both right in your guesses. Thanks a billion for the help!

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

> > /mnt/data01-hdd, where I?ve stored some stuff: > > > > user@hostname:/$ ls -gh /mnt/data01-hdd/ > > total 4.0K > > drwxr-xr-x 5 1007 4.0K Jan 1 23:02 backups > > Perhaps that stuff is just on the directory (using space > in the partition containing that dire

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

o > /mnt/data01-hdd, where I’ve stored some stuff: > > user@hostname:/$ ls -gh /mnt/data01-hdd/ > total 4.0K > drwxr-xr-x 5 1007 4.0K Jan 1 23:02 backups Perhaps that stuff is just on the directory (using space in the partition containing that directory... > However, when i

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 23:03:14 + thyme after thyme wrote: > However, when i do > user@hostname:/$ sudo umount /mnt/data01-hdd > > umount complains thus: > umount: /mnt/data01-hdd: not mounted. First off, don't tell us what the program did, show us exactly what the progra

partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

/ total 4.0K drwxr-xr-x 5 1007 4.0K Jan 1 23:02 backups However, when i do user@hostname:/$ sudo umount /mnt/data01-hdd umount complains thus: umount: /mnt/data01-hdd: not mounted. How can I unmount the partition? lsblk -f doesn’t show the partition as mounted, which is something that I don’t

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

uld not rely on umount to make a USB stick ready for pulling, even if experiments show that it happens reliably. The man pages umount(8) and umount(2) do not guarantee that the device gets synced. Future programmers might take this as permission to break things in favor of improved performance.

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

ecommended on some Unix systems as they might *not* necessarily unmount and flush data cleanly. This has not been necessary since *forever* on any sensible system, like Linux - the system will already flush all existing filesystem buffers as part of the umount process. There *is* one reaonable e

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

Le 10/07/2022 à 19:46, fxkl4...@protonmail.com a écrit : On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: On 7/10/22 09:57, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: On 7/10/22 05:55, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: Several decades ago I was taught to type sync

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: > On 7/10/22 09:57, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: >>> On 7/10/22 05:55, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: > Several decades ago I was taught to type sync and then type sync >>> again before unmounting

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

On 7/10/22 09:57, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: On 7/10/22 05:55, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: Several decades ago I was taught to type sync and then type sync again before unmounting a drive The only reason I ever got was that the second syn

Re: sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, David Christensen wrote: > On 7/10/22 05:55, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: > > I'm just flapping my gums > > As a systems administrator for UNIX systems I wrote more than a few > scripts > > Many time I found it necessary to put a sleep between operations > > +1 > > > The har

sleep(1) vs. sync(1) twice before umount(8)

On 7/10/22 05:55, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: > I'm just flapping my gums > As a systems administrator for UNIX systems I wrote more than a few scripts > Many time I found it necessary to put a sleep between operations +1 The hard part is deciding what the NUMBER argument should be. :-/

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Hi, G.W. Haywood wrote: > The system load averages are elevated to an extent, > but 'top' doesn't show any particular processes hogging CPU. If top does not show processes which cause visible high overall CPU load, then this might indicate many short running processes. You could estimate the num

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Mark Allums wrote: ... > /usr/lib/gvfs/gvfsd --no-fuse > Failed to acquire daemon name, perhaps the VFS daemon is already running? you sound about as frustrated by this sort of thing as i was. you could try to find out what it is via the gio command that is being captured and put it in your .

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-25, Mark Allums wrote: >> >> A tricky exercise which can depend on your DE (and maybe even your >> graphical login manager). What have you tried so far? > > The things I tried are naive. I don't know, or have forgotten, where to > put commands that run that early in the process. I r

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 04:35:32AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: On 2/23/20 3:02 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: Can you repeat this, but include the output of "grep sdb1 /proc/mounts" before the udisksctl invocation, and again after it? Thanks. george@martha:~$ grep sdb1 /proc/mounts /dev/sdb1 /med

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/25/20 3:43 AM, Curt wrote: On 2020-02-25, Mark Allums wrote: george@martha:~$ systemctl stop gvfs-daemon Failed to stop gvfs-daemon.service: Unit gvfs-daemon.service not loaded. You cannot stop what does not exist. I think the systemd unit involved is run-user-1000-gvfs.mount Tr

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-25, Mark Allums wrote: > > george@martha:~$ systemctl stop gvfs-daemon > Failed to stop gvfs-daemon.service: Unit gvfs-daemon.service not loaded. You cannot stop what does not exist. I think the systemd unit involved is run-user-1000-gvfs.mount Try 'systemctl status run-user-1000-

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/24/20 10:08 AM, David Wright wrote: On Mon 24 Feb 2020 at 10:54:28 (-), Curt wrote: On 2020-02-24, Mark Allums wrote: george@martha:~$ gvfsd --no-fuse bash: gvfsd: command not found george@martha:~$ systemctl stop gvfsd Failed to stop gvfsd.service: Unit gvfsd.servi

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-24, David Wright wrote: > > > which suggests a bit of misunderstanding about what gvfsd is. > AIUI it's a daemon (hence the d), and not in anyone's PATH, > which is why you have to find out where it's running from and > what might be consulting the value of GVFS_DISABLE_FUSE. > Also I t

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Mon 24 Feb 2020 at 10:54:28 (-), Curt wrote: > On 2020-02-24, Mark Allums wrote: > >> > >> How to set an environment variable in a DE is left as an exercise for > >> the reader. > > > > The gvfsd --no-fuse doesn't do it for me. > > > > That may be David's exercise then. I think not. I

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-24, Mark Allums wrote: >> >> How to set an environment variable in a DE is left as an exercise for >> the reader. > > The gvfsd --no-fuse doesn't do it for me. > That may be David's exercise then. -- "J'ai pour me guérir du jugement des autres toute la distance qui me sépare de m

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/23/20 3:02 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:58:10PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: Explain this, then: george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 Unmounted /dev/sdb1. george@martha:~$ sudo e2fsck -c -c -k -p -f -C 0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb1 is in use. e2fsck: Cannot contin

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/23/20 5:00 AM, Curt wrote: I never understood the actual procedure for unmounting when gvfsd was doing it;s thing, nor how to prevent the whole mess in the first place (short of doing without gvfsd, et al). Well, at any rate, I can only believe your deal here (*completely* unrelated to the

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Hi, udisksctl -b unmount /dev/sr0 seems to work for the user who has problems with sudo umount. I write "seems" because feedback is still a bit sparse. Unmounting by directory name turned out to be too much prone to user error. I am not sure whether it would work on that system. H

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:58:10PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: Explain this, then: george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 Unmounted /dev/sdb1. george@martha:~$ sudo e2fsck -c -c -k -p -f -C 0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb1 is in use. e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting. Can you repeat this, but incl

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-23, Mark Allums wrote: > On 2/22/20 8:36 AM, Curt wrote: >> On 2020-02-22, Mark Allums wrote: But does not require superuser, if udisks2 mounted it on your user's behalf in the first place. >>> Explain this, then: >>> >>> george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/22/20 8:36 AM, Curt wrote: On 2020-02-22, Mark Allums wrote: But does not require superuser, if udisks2 mounted it on your user's behalf in the first place. Explain this, then: george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 Unmounted /dev/sdb1. george@martha:~$ sudo e2fsck -c -c -k -

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Saturday 22 February 2020 14:55:45 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > [...] > > > I dunno, I've got years on you, and I'm not half done with what I > > need to do yet. > > If everything's done before one leaves, then it gets boring, doesn

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: [...] > I dunno, I've got years on you, and I'm not half done with what I need to > do yet. If everything's done before one leaves, then it gets boring, doesn't it? > What I like to find is a government that uses our Constitution, a

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Saturday 22 February 2020 12:03:41 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > but udisksctl (or however it's called) said "all is well", > > > so it must be either lying -- or someone else quicly mounte

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > but udisksctl (or however it's called) said "all is well", > > so it must be either lying -- or someone else quicly mounted > > things after that. > > There is obvious need for a special distro f

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > but udisksctl (or however it's called) said "all is well", > so it must be either lying -- or someone else quicly mounted > things after that. There is obvious need for a special distro for age-wise challenged people like me. Or at least some online AI which navigate

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Or the /dev/sdb1 is still mounted elsewhere. > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > twice? (it was just umounted once, [...] > > Own experience with Debian 10.0 Live: > There are two mount points of /d

Re: Modern automounters and umount

unmounted. The mount point /run/live/medium refuses to unmount because busy. Sorry for not being able yet to provide feedback to the proposals. I forwarded to my user: sudo umount /media/ddval/ISOIMAGE pumount /dev/sr0 pumount /media/ddval/ISOIMAGE sudo udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sr0 Have a

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 09:29:51AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > So either "udisksctl" is lying or something else is happening > > behind the scenes (e.g. an over-eager automounter remounting > > the file system again). > > Or the /dev/sdb1 is still mounted elsewhere. twice? (it was just umoun

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-22, Mark Allums wrote: >> >> But does not require superuser, if udisks2 mounted it on your user's >> behalf in the first place. >> >> > Explain this, then: > > george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 > Unmounted /dev/sdb1. > george@martha:~$ sudo e2fsck -c -c -k -p -f -C 0 /d

Re: Modern automounters and umount

> So either "udisksctl" is lying or something else is happening > behind the scenes (e.g. an over-eager automounter remounting > the file system again). Or the /dev/sdb1 is still mounted elsewhere. Stefan

Re: Modern automounters and umount

" into a device file (/dev/sb1), only into a directory, which is part of a mounted file system. Then, this directory is "in use". But then you can't umount the corresponding file system. So either "udisksctl" is lying or something else is happening behind the scen

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2020-02-22, Gene Heskett wrote: >> >> george@martha:~$ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 >> Unmounted /dev/sdb1. >> george@martha:~$ sudo e2fsck -c -c -k -p -f -C 0 /dev/sdb1 >> /dev/sdb1 is in use. >> e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting. >> >> Thnx, >> >> Mark > Is there a user cd'd into it? That

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Friday 21 February 2020 22:58:10 Mark Allums wrote: > On 2/21/20 9:23 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 08:53:50AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> Indeed.  And FWIW, you should/might be able to avoid the `sudo` by > >> asking udisks2 to do the unmount > > > > Yep. It req

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On 2/21/20 9:23 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 08:53:50AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: Indeed.  And FWIW, you should/might be able to avoid the `sudo` by asking udisks2 to do the unmount Yep. It requires you to specify the device, rather than the filesystem mount point:

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Thomas Schmitt wrote: ... > Does anybody here experience similar stubbornness of automounting ? > If so: How to unmount a DVD without ejecting it ? not having done much with DVDs recently i can't say much about them. i can say that i really hate having something automounted even when i tell th

Re: Modern automounters and umount

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 08:53:50AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: Indeed. And FWIW, you should/might be able to avoid the `sudo` by asking udisks2 to do the unmount Yep. It requires you to specify the device, rather than the filesystem mount point: $ udisksctl unmount -b /dev/sdb1 But does

Re: Modern automounters and umount

>> > $ mount | fgrep /dev/sr0 >> > /dev/sr0 on /media/ddval/ISOIMAGE type iso9660 (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime, >> > nojoliet,check=s,map=n, blocksize=2048,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmode=500, >> > fmode=400,uhelper=udisks2) >> > $ sudo umount /dev/sr0 >>

Re: Modern automounters and umount

Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > $ mount | fgrep /dev/sr0 > > /dev/sr0 on /media/ddval/ISOIMAGE type iso9660 (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime, > > nojoliet,check=s,map=n, blocksize=2048,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmode=500, > > fmode=400,uhelper=udisks2) > > $ sudo umount /dev/sr0 > >

Modern automounters and umount

| fgrep /dev/sr0 > /dev/sr0 on /media/ddval/ISOIMAGE type iso9660 (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime, > nojoliet,check=s,map=n, blocksize=2048,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmode=500, > fmode=400,uhelper=udisks2) > $ sudo umount /dev/sr0 > umount: /dev/sr0: not mounted Does anybody here experience

Re: A Very Bad umount

On Sep 11, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: > /bin/rm: cannot remove > '/var/cache/rsnapshot/halfday.1/wb5agz/home/usr/lib/i386 > -linux-gnu': Transport endpoint is not connected In your rsnapshot.conf file, is “use_lazy_deletes” set to 1? If so, the final delete part of “rsnapsho

Re: A Very Bad umount

=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > > Good Day, > > Not sure if that is the kind of answer you would wish to > expect, but have you considered doing umounts sequentially? > (optionally after synchronizing file systems) > > sync >

Re: A Very Bad umount

=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > Good Day Gene, > > Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > > Should a badly placed “rm” command occur on the system, the > system and both of its backup disks would be wiped clean. I > don't believe the risk mentioned here over was related to disk >

Re: A Very Bad umount

On Wednesday 12 September 2018 13:12:43 Étienne Mollier wrote: > Good Day Gene, > > Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > > On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >Any constructive ideas are appreciated. If I left > > > the drives mounted al

Re: A Very Bad umount

Good Day Gene, Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: > > [...] > > >Any constructive ideas are appreciated. If I left > > the drives mounted all the time, there would be no spew but > > since these are backup drives, having

Re: A Very Bad umount

On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: [...] >    Any constructive ideas are appreciated.  If I left the > drives mounted all the time, there would be no spew but since > these are backup drives, having them mounted all the time is > quite risky. > > Martin McCormick WB

Re: A Very Bad umount

=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > > Good Day, > > Not sure if that is the kind of answer you would wish to > expect, but have you considered doing umounts sequentially? > (optionally after synchronizing file systems) > > sync >

Re: A Very Bad umount

On 9/11/18 9:28 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: > #Combine 2 256-GB drives in to 1 512 GB drive. > > mount /rsnapshot1 > mount /rsnapshot2 > mhddfs /rsnapshot1,/rsnapshot2 /var/cache/rsnapshot -o mlimit=100M > -8<8< > I have

A Very Bad umount

That all works as it should. One can run rsnapshot and get a backup of today's file system. The /etc/rsnapshot.conf file is set to call the mount process before rsync runs and then do the umount after it finishes cmd_preexec /usr/local/etc/mtbkmedia # Specify the path

Re: usb device umount option in menu missing for some devices [SOLVED]

For the record in /opt/trinity/share/apps/konqueror/servicemenus/media_unmount.desktop add media/camera_mounted to [Desktop Entry] X-TDE-ServiceTypes=,media/camera_mounted at the end of the list like above. Then reload the desktop session and the unmount option appears as expected. rega

Re: usb device umount option in menu missing for some devices

Liam O'Toole wrote: > > Are you using GNOME (the default) in Jessie? If so, the device should > appear in the nautilus sidebar, with an 'unmount' icon next to it. > No I use trinity, but in my opinion it is not about the desktop but how the device is associated with the set of options to displa

Re: usb device umount option in menu missing for some devices

On 2015-05-13, deloptes wrote: > Hi > where I can look for a resolution of following problem. > > When I plug usb stick or memory card in the notebook I see the option in the > menu to mount/umount it and it works great. > > When I plug the phone (select use as usb storage de

usb device umount option in menu missing for some devices

Hi where I can look for a resolution of following problem. When I plug usb stick or memory card in the notebook I see the option in the menu to mount/umount it and it works great. When I plug the phone (select use as usb storage device in the phone) it appears in the menu and I can mount it but

Re: sudo umount hangs when booting with systemd

On 12/15/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On 12/15/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >> /etc/fstab : > >> /zenlocal/zen/justa /home/justa none bind >> /zenlocal/zen/ /home/justa/zen none bind > > Removing these solved the problem. > Another small issue that arose when I uncommented the first of the > ab

Re: sudo umount hangs when booting with systemd

On 12/15/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > /etc/fstab : > /zenlocal/zen/justa /home/justa none bind > /zenlocal/zen/ /home/justa/zen none bind Removing these solved the problem. I have unwound my two bind mount mounts (with the sequence as above - not recursive, but the latter bind mounted inside t

sudo umount hangs when booting with systemd

I have a directory /media/USB01 Nothing is mounted on this directory. When I run the following, after booting up with systemd, the command hangs: sudo umount /media/USB01 A Ctrl-C breaks the hang. $ cat /etc/fstab # /etc/fstab: static file system information. # # Use 'blkid' to

davfs2: umount no longer waits for cache synchronization

Beginning with 1.4.7-1.1 (wheezy), unmounting a davfs filesystem returns immediately: $ umount /foo/dav $ The "waiting while mount.davfs (pid ) synchronizes the cache" message is not printed; cache synchronization continues in the background. It appears that umount.davfs is

Re: User unable to umount

on Hi. Looks like you've been hit by Debian bug #660431: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660431 Basically, umount.cifs and possibly other umount helpers are deliberately broken upstream to comply with some obscure systemd design oddity. A workaround seems to be: a) umou

Re: User unable to umount

following line in my /etc/fstab //server/dir /mnt/dir cifs defaults,user,noauto,sec=krb50 0 mounting works flawlessly, unsing the ticket obtained through pam_krb5 at login. However umount /mnt/it leads to : umount: only root can unmount //server/dir

Re: User unable to umount

Hi have following line in my /etc/fstab > > > > //server/dir /mnt/dir cifs > > > > defaults,user,noauto,sec=krb50 0 > > > > > > > > mounting works flawlessly, unsing the ticket obtained through

Re: User unable to umount

ir /mnt/dir cifs > > > defaults,user,noauto,sec=krb50 0 > > > > > > mounting works flawlessly, unsing the ticket obtained through pam_krb5 at > > > login. > > > > > > However > > > > > > umount /mnt/

Re: User unable to umount

krb50 0 > > > > mounting works flawlessly, unsing the ticket obtained through pam_krb5 at > > login. > > > > However > > > > umount /mnt/it leads to : > > > > umount: only root can unmount //server/dir from /mnt/dir > > > > Ther

Re: User unable to umount

ugh pam_krb5 at > login. > > However > > umount /mnt/it leads to : > > umount: only root can unmount //server/dir from /mnt/dir > > There is no point to allowing user to mount but forbiding them yo umount the > directory they mounted. > > DO someone hav

User unable to umount

Hi have following line in my /etc/fstab //server/dir /mnt/dir cifs defaults,user,noauto,sec=krb50 0 mounting works flawlessly, unsing the ticket obtained through pam_krb5 at login. However umount /mnt/it leads to : umount: only root

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

T o n g wrote: > Interesting. What is systemd? (apt-cache search systemd shows me nothing) 'systemd' is an alternative 'sysvinit' system. > How can I tell if I'm using systemd or not? If you don't know then you are not using it. You are using sysvinit if you haven't manually taken action to ch

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:54:09 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: >> > Why did you choose "rbind" over "bind". Just curious. >> >> The advantage of using "rbind" is that you don't have to mount >> "/dev/pts" and "/dev/shm" (or just "/dev/pts" on wheezy since >> "/dev/shm" has been moved to "/run/shm") afte

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:41:50AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > > Ross Boylan wrote: > >> > >> I setup a chroot on a snapshot. Part of the setup was > >> mount --rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev > > > > Why did you choose "rbind" over "bind". Just curiou

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev > > > > > > I have exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. > > > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > > > gives umount: /mnt/chrtest/dev: device is busy > > > > > > How can I get this to work? > > > >

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

ded the processes I started. > > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > > gives umount: /mnt/chrtest/dev: device is busy > > > > How can I get this to work? > > All the answers have been good ones. > > I just wanted to mention that if you want to do this regularly, > the

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Ross Boylan wrote: >> >> I setup a chroot on a snapshot. Part of the setup was >> mount --rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev > > Why did you choose "rbind" over "bind". Just curious. The advantage of using "rbind" is that you don't have to mount "/

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:46:35PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > I setup a chroot on a snapshot. Part of the setup was > mount --rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev > > I have exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > gives umount

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote: > > I setup a chroot on a snapshot. Part of the setup was > mount --rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev > > I have exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > gives umount: /mnt/c

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 23:20 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > Try using the umount -l option for a lazy unmount. Might work. Might > not work. If it doesn't then I think you need to reboot. Kind of works. umount -l /mnt/chrtest/dev no error messages. And it's no longer lis

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

Ross Boylan wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Why did you choose "rbind" over "bind". Just curious. > > It's certainly not something to take as a model; it's just what sort of > worked for me. Understood. We are all pragmatic when need be

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

ve exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. > > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > > gives umount: /mnt/chrtest/dev: device is busy > > > > How can I get this to work? > > Unmount that path. Look at /proc/mounts for the path to anything > mounted in t

Re: trying to umount a chroot /dev

e wrong for rbind. But it would be right for bind. > I have exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. > umount /mnt/chrtest/dev > gives umount: /mnt/chrtest/dev: device is busy > > How can I get this to work? Unmount that path. Look at /proc/mounts for the p

trying to umount a chroot /dev

I setup a chroot on a snapshot. Part of the setup was mount --rbind /dev /mnt/chrtest/dev I have exited the chroot and, I believe, ended the processes I started. umount /mnt/chrtest/dev gives umount: /mnt/chrtest/dev: device is busy How can I get this to work? After reviewing the output of

Re: Cannot umount: device is busy

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:50 AM, T o n g wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:34:14 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > >>> I.e., there is no processes associated with the mount point any more, >>> but I still can't umount the device. Moreover: >>> >>>    $ p

Re: Cannot umount: device is busy

Hello List, On 14/04/11 15:22, T o n g wrote: Hi, I can't umount a device even I've killed all related processes: % umount /mnt/mpoint umount: /mnt/mpoint: device is busy. (In some cases useful info about processes that use the device is found by lsof(8)

Re: Cannot umount: device is busy

T o n g: > > Is there any way that I can kill all those kernel processes associated > with the mount? For NFS run: /etc/init.d/nfs-kernel-server stop J. -- All participation is a myth. [Agree] [Disagree] signature.asc

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

lates to the automounter at all. > it's deja vu all over again :-) this was the issue last time, I was using "user", and since automount, i.e. the system was mounting the filesystem I could not umount. So I changed the keyword to users and everything was working fine, until now.

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

> The option specified by mount(8)'s manpage is "user", not "users". I > don't recall if that relates to the automounter at all. Your statement regarding user vs users is correct. It doesn't affect the automounter however, as I don't have an fstab line regarding my external drives - this may be t

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

On 11 March 2011 06:32, wrote: > Howdy, > > Here's the option line from the auto.media file: > > /media/thingy  -fstype=vfat,users,flush,rw,umask=   :/dev/ipod > > I could have sworn this was working... > > I posted a while back and found out that the "users" option had to be in > there. The

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

Brian, I am experiencing the same issue with external EXT formatted drives with the automounter (in Gnome). They mount just fine, but I must become root to umount them. If you find a solution, please share it with the mailing list ;) Best of luck, George -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

:/dev/ipod > > > > I could have sworn this was working... > > > > I posted a while back and found out that the "users" option had to > > be in > > there. > > > > Now I get this : > > > >umount: /media/thingy i

Re: regular user can't umount automount drive

ption had to be in there. Now I get this : umount: /media/thingy is not in the fstab (and you are not root) I could have sworn it was working...#$#%#@!! any ideas ? Brian To my knowledge, automounter is supposed to unmount the device automatically -- not manually -- once all process

regular user can't umount automount drive

Howdy, Here's the option line from the auto.media file: /media/thingy -fstype=vfat,users,flush,rw,umask= :/dev/ipod I could have sworn this was working... I posted a while back and found out that the "users" option had to be in there. Now I get this : umount: /medi

Re: Can't umount smb share because of nepomukse

ot; the above is an extract from http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1052816 So try first deactivating the server and then unmount using umount or smbumount command. /Jeffrin -- software engineer. department of computer science rajagiri school of engineering and technology. -- To

Re: Can't umount smb share because of nepomukse

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:20:09 -0600, Kent West wrote: > I've smbmount'd a share, and when I try to umount it, I get the message: > > westk@westek:~$ sudo umount mnt > umount: /home/westk/mnt: device is busy. > (In some cases useful info about processes that use

Can't umount smb share because of nepomukse

I've smbmount'd a share, and when I try to umount it, I get the message: westk@westek:~$ sudo umount mnt umount: /home/westk/mnt: device is busy. (In some cases useful info about processes that use the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1)) So I run westk@west

  1   2   3   4   >