From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 21 21:12:05 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B911065694 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:12:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from claudiu.vasadi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47E18FC1C for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so1812218wwi.31 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6CWTjkFu352yK29rVHMWBATyA6YzqUsynbMrfpNmaoU=; b=D1qEIBIVtd449HCYB8/cp3C+XXhZvUQgxnmYz6H6MQ9UN+KNbSlSuFR9M0JqWzKPQg +KnC48Ba+/8eJMLrE/8mHK0JPCbIon8n/3roYPlqRHJS3Odz1smBRFUDqiVsrDPUDTom AUVmbSZUTzljX/Syn5f2g/hcaY9Ucgjn5R4NU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=OmFkCzVYWG818sqIZp0b0U58knFVlmsicbdNwfiYbCd2JqQwfCP0jNgfOvOL6BhGd9 1kYu1hty3c7vZ1fP738u5rHBzEjC+7MQ2i3sM58FTwB7T2t1ACRKhz5M/OJ5QEcn0s96 6s6peDpRl45WAdGQKePTeK63yM2+HBIHl8kYY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.15 with SMTP id v15mr2858080wee.9.1282425123572; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.179.201 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:12:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: claudiu vasadi To: FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: mountpoint not existent, droping to single user mode X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:12:05 -0000 Hello fellas, I have a 8.0 i386 vmware machine for the sake of testing the following behavior: What happened when a "secondary" hdd cannot be mounted at boot ? From experience I know the OS drops to single user mode, which I find incredibly stupid because a "non-OS" hdd should not stop the OS from booting up (imagine the hdd has a malfunction and then you get lucky enough to get a power surge - the OS won't come up because of a darn non-OS-important hdd). TEST scenario: 2 hdd's. The system is installed on the first one, and the second one has "/mnt/2" as mountpoin. The 2nd disk was labeled and a new ufs partition was created. I added the corresponding fstab entries and then I deliberately removed the "/mnt/2" folder. FYI: this "secondary" hdd has no data on it whatsoever. Then I rebooted and of course the system went in single user mode. And now my question: "WHY????" (I know that "rc" finishes abnormally) The hdd has no relevant data on it, the OS has no files on it ... basically it does not get in the way of anything (except the perfect execution of the "rc" framework). Anyway, it seems to me that "secondary" hdd's mount failure should be "ignored" and an OS should be able to come up if one mountpoint does not exist or if an entry in fstab is wrong (again, I am talking about non-OS related hdd/mountpoints). To make things worst, I tested a RHEL5 and the system booted without any problems even if the "secondary" hdd's mp was missing. Can someone explain this "weird?" behavior ?