From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemens@dwf.com Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:27:43 +0000 Subject: Re: udev problems Message-Id: <200504182127.j3ILRhBU025216@orion.dwf.com> List-Id: References: <200403071315.02925.michal@cihar.com> In-Reply-To: <200403071315.02925.michal@cihar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 12:13:38PM -0600, clemens@dwf.com wrote: > > is. > > > > If it is legal, then I have a complaint... > > > > This has happened to me twice now (three times if you count the twice > > yesterday while I was trying to dig my way out). > > > > It would seem, that on a reboot (on the way down, on the way up, Im not > > sure) that udev proceeds to remove all files that were active at the > > time the system went down. I will assume that it created all of these > > files, so it thinks that it can remove them. > > No, odds are /dev is mounted on a ram or tmpfs filesystem, which means > the whole thing was thrown away when the machine was rebooted. udev did > not remove anything on it's own. No, /dev is just part of the root file system. /dev/shm is on tempf, but thats irrevelant to the current problem. I had assumed that the only reason for udev to retain a database was so that it COULD do this. As I noted, /dev/hde0-7 (which I mount) are gone, /dev/hde8-9 (which I dont) are still there. Very suspicious to me... > > > Hey what ever happened to the MKNOD (?) script that used to be in > > UNIX systems? I dont see it in Fedora2. That would have helped in > > the repair. > > Try asking the Fedora people, that's up to them, and how they package > udev. > Yes, I know, I was just asking the question. > > I had this same problem a couple of months ago, and just gave up > > and reinstalled the OS. I hate to do that as it may only take 30-45m > > to do the reinstall, but it takes another week to get everything > > configured back the way it was... > > Sounds like you need to learn about backing stuff up :) Somehow, for the sorts of things that have happened, I wouldnt trust a backup to fix them. > > > Needless to say, Im not going to use > > > > udev_root="/dev/" > > udev_db="/dev/.udev.tdb > > > > again, anthough it sure makes life a lot simpler. > > > > And, Im going to have to go and remove it from some machines at the > > lab, before disaster strikes there too. > > Might I suggest a newer distro than Fedora2? Like one that actually > implementes udev properly? > OK, sorry, a few lines got truncated off my original message when I posted it. The original started with: OK, Im having problems, and Im sure its UDEV that is doing the deed. [Fedora 2 and the latest udev ] First, is it legal to say udev_root="/dev/" udev_db="/dev/.udev.tdb If not, there should be a BIG sign on the /udev.conf page saying not to do this. If it is legal, ... So, back to the original question. IS THIS LEGAL? And, as I said there, Fedora2 + the most recently released udev. -- Reg.Clemens reg@dwf.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel