Cannot mount sda1: “The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.”NTFS Signature...
Iterate over deepest values in a nested Association
Why was p[:] designed to work differently in these two situations?
How can I open this door latch with the knobs removed?
When casting a spell with a long casting time, what happens if you don't spend your action on a turn to continue casting?
Journal standards vs. personal standards
Does friction always oppose motion?
How to securely dispose of a smartphone?
Calculus, Water Poured into a Cone: Why is Derivative Non-linear?
Why wasn't ASCII designed with a contiguous alphanumeric character order?
Converting Geographic Coordinates into Lambert2008 coordinates
Word ending in "-ine" for rat-like
How do ohm meters measure high resistances?
Is it okay to fade a human face just to create some space to place important content over it?
Cooking a nice pan seared steak for picky eaters
Origin of the convolution theorem
What happens if a caster is surprised while casting a spell with a long casting time?
Discworld quote about an "old couple" who having said everything to each other, can finally go about living their lives
Making a wall made from glass bricks
Why doesn't SpaceX land boosters in Africa?
Could you fall off a planet if it was being accelerated by engines?
Why isn't UDP with reliability (implemented at Application layer) a substitute of TCP?
Active wildlife outside the window- Good or Bad for Cat psychology?
"I am [the / an] owner of a bookstore"?
Cup and Trade: The Perfect Nutmeg Soup
Cannot mount sda1: “The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.”
NTFS Signature MissingDevice names for logical volumesHow to add Puppy Linux to grub menu installed by Ubuntu?Which device to install the bootloader should I choose?How to mount sdb directly or using LVM partitions on sda?Expanding root partition CentOS 6 With using fdiskAdd scound Linux OS dual with Centos 7Optimal LVM Setup to Keep Adding Space to Single MountpointCorrupted ntfs volume mounting problemWrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdXNTFS Signature Missing
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I've installed Ubuntu alongside Windows 7. When i try to mount /mnt/sda1 which is Windows part on it, i take error such that; "The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS."
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/sda1': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a
partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?
It is the result when i command fdisk -l;
Disk /dev/sda: 298,1 GiB, 320072933376 bytes, 625142448 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x29af3b15
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 2048 546911727 546909680 260,8G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 546912254 625141759 78229506 37,3G 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 * 546912256 625141759 78229504 37,3G 83 Linux
linux mount dual-boot ntfs
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
add a comment |
I've installed Ubuntu alongside Windows 7. When i try to mount /mnt/sda1 which is Windows part on it, i take error such that; "The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS."
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/sda1': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a
partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?
It is the result when i command fdisk -l;
Disk /dev/sda: 298,1 GiB, 320072933376 bytes, 625142448 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x29af3b15
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 2048 546911727 546909680 260,8G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 546912254 625141759 78229506 37,3G 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 * 546912256 625141759 78229504 37,3G 83 Linux
linux mount dual-boot ntfs
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32
add a comment |
I've installed Ubuntu alongside Windows 7. When i try to mount /mnt/sda1 which is Windows part on it, i take error such that; "The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS."
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/sda1': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a
partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?
It is the result when i command fdisk -l;
Disk /dev/sda: 298,1 GiB, 320072933376 bytes, 625142448 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x29af3b15
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 2048 546911727 546909680 260,8G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 546912254 625141759 78229506 37,3G 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 * 546912256 625141759 78229504 37,3G 83 Linux
linux mount dual-boot ntfs
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
I've installed Ubuntu alongside Windows 7. When i try to mount /mnt/sda1 which is Windows part on it, i take error such that; "The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS."
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/sda1': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/sda1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a
partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?
It is the result when i command fdisk -l;
Disk /dev/sda: 298,1 GiB, 320072933376 bytes, 625142448 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x29af3b15
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 2048 546911727 546909680 260,8G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 546912254 625141759 78229506 37,3G 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 * 546912256 625141759 78229504 37,3G 83 Linux
linux mount dual-boot ntfs
linux mount dual-boot ntfs
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 14:24
GAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 21 '18 at 12:31
NoteliedNotelied
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
281 silver badge4 bronze badges
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32
add a comment |
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
use ntfsfix to fix this problem:
sudo ntfsfix /dev/sda1
Then mount your partition.
To get the exact information about the bootable windows partition before executing ntfsfix:
sudo file -s /dev/sda1
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after runningsudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3(it's nvme; my windows is onp3):Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made
– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
add a comment |
Are you sure a valid NT file system is on /dev/sda1? Does it boot?
What you see in fdisk's output is the "partition ID" and "type", given when the disk is partitioned, no file system made yet. Only after an mkfs (or "format" in windows speak) a file system is available and recognized.
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?
– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
add a comment |
Verify that the hard disk does not have any encryption, for example, in the case of having dual boot, it verifies if in windows it does not have activated bitlocker.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476852%2fcannot-mount-sda1-the-device-dev-sda1-doesnt-seem-to-have-a-valid-ntfs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
use ntfsfix to fix this problem:
sudo ntfsfix /dev/sda1
Then mount your partition.
To get the exact information about the bootable windows partition before executing ntfsfix:
sudo file -s /dev/sda1
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after runningsudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3(it's nvme; my windows is onp3):Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made
– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
add a comment |
use ntfsfix to fix this problem:
sudo ntfsfix /dev/sda1
Then mount your partition.
To get the exact information about the bootable windows partition before executing ntfsfix:
sudo file -s /dev/sda1
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after runningsudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3(it's nvme; my windows is onp3):Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made
– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
add a comment |
use ntfsfix to fix this problem:
sudo ntfsfix /dev/sda1
Then mount your partition.
To get the exact information about the bootable windows partition before executing ntfsfix:
sudo file -s /dev/sda1
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
use ntfsfix to fix this problem:
sudo ntfsfix /dev/sda1
Then mount your partition.
To get the exact information about the bootable windows partition before executing ntfsfix:
sudo file -s /dev/sda1
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 21:07
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
answered Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
GAD3RGAD3R
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
29.5k19 gold badges61 silver badges121 bronze badges
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after runningsudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3(it's nvme; my windows is onp3):Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made
– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
add a comment |
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after runningsudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3(it's nvme; my windows is onp3):Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made
– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
13
13
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I think it's a bad idea to recommend "run this utility that messes with your filesystem" without first verifying that it's actually the right partition and that it's actually NTFS that's supposed to be on there... What if it actually was a FAT filesystem (common for EFI, especially as the first partition), or ext4? It could easily leave people with an unbootable system or data loss.
– marcelm
Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
I still get an error after running
sudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3 (it's nvme; my windows is on p3): Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
I still get an error after running
sudo ntfsfix /dev/nvme0n1p3 (it's nvme; my windows is on p3): Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. No change made– Samleo
Apr 26 at 5:52
add a comment |
Are you sure a valid NT file system is on /dev/sda1? Does it boot?
What you see in fdisk's output is the "partition ID" and "type", given when the disk is partitioned, no file system made yet. Only after an mkfs (or "format" in windows speak) a file system is available and recognized.
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?
– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
add a comment |
Are you sure a valid NT file system is on /dev/sda1? Does it boot?
What you see in fdisk's output is the "partition ID" and "type", given when the disk is partitioned, no file system made yet. Only after an mkfs (or "format" in windows speak) a file system is available and recognized.
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?
– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
add a comment |
Are you sure a valid NT file system is on /dev/sda1? Does it boot?
What you see in fdisk's output is the "partition ID" and "type", given when the disk is partitioned, no file system made yet. Only after an mkfs (or "format" in windows speak) a file system is available and recognized.
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
Are you sure a valid NT file system is on /dev/sda1? Does it boot?
What you see in fdisk's output is the "partition ID" and "type", given when the disk is partitioned, no file system made yet. Only after an mkfs (or "format" in windows speak) a file system is available and recognized.
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
edited Oct 21 '18 at 13:41
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Oct 21 '18 at 13:14
RudiCRudiC
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
4,3591 gold badge3 silver badges12 bronze badges
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?
– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
add a comment |
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?
– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
I forgot to say, yes i can't boot windows after installing Ubuntu. After installing i could mount sda1 but now i cant. I did try Syslinux to fix Windows boot. Is there possibility to Syslinux made this partition unmountable ?
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:18
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
After using ntfsfix, the problem fixed. Thank you for helping.
– Notelied
Oct 21 '18 at 14:23
Does 'blkid' /
lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
Does 'blkid' /
lsblk's FSTYPE / --fs just read the partition type too, or does it check the actual filesystem?– Xen2050
Oct 21 '18 at 14:51
add a comment |
Verify that the hard disk does not have any encryption, for example, in the case of having dual boot, it verifies if in windows it does not have activated bitlocker.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Verify that the hard disk does not have any encryption, for example, in the case of having dual boot, it verifies if in windows it does not have activated bitlocker.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Verify that the hard disk does not have any encryption, for example, in the case of having dual boot, it verifies if in windows it does not have activated bitlocker.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Verify that the hard disk does not have any encryption, for example, in the case of having dual boot, it verifies if in windows it does not have activated bitlocker.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
answered 1 hour ago
MarioMario
1
1
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mario is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476852%2fcannot-mount-sda1-the-device-dev-sda1-doesnt-seem-to-have-a-valid-ntfs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Close voter(s): This problem did not ‘‘go away on its own’’. It went away when the OP used GAD3R’s answer.
– G-Man
Oct 21 '18 at 23:16
Answer was here first. But now it’s like i talked with myself. It was for GAD3R’s comment(answer).
– Notelied
Oct 23 '18 at 16:32