I have a server (running Ubuntu 14.04) that has a hot-swap drive bay. I typically use the hot-swap bay to mount one of a bunch of loose hard disks that I shuttle large scientific datasets around on. Some of these disks require different mount options (different filesystems, SSDs v HDDs etc.), which I would normally specify separately for each UUID within /etc/fstab.

In order to simplify some of my scripts for batch processing and backing up this data, I'd like to configure the server to always use the same mount point for whichever one of these hot-swapped disks is currently plugged in.

I've tried putting something like this in my fstab:

UUID=<disk A>  /common_mount_point  ext4   defaults,discard,noatime  0 0
UUID=<disk B>  /common_mount_point  btrfs  defaults,compress=lzo     0 0    

This works fine when I want to mount disk A, but I get an error whenever I try to mount disk B:

mount: special device UUID=<disk B> does not exist

The converse happens if I swap the order of those two lines, so it seems that mount just looks for the first line in fstab that refers to that particular mount point and throws an error if the associated file system descriptor can't be found.

I suppose that I could probably write a bash script to sequentially try mounting several different UUIDs to the same mount point until one of the mount operations succeeds, but I was hoping there would be a more elegant solution.

Update 1

Interestingly if I call sudo mount -a instead of mount /common_mount_point, whilst I still get the error message that the UUID for disk A can't be found, it succeeds at mounting disk B. It therefore seems that mount -a will try multiple fstab entries with the same mountpoint, but I'd rather not have to sudo in order to make this work.

This behavior seems to be related to this reported bug in mountall, which was apparently fixed in v2.50. The newest verison in the Trusty repos is still 2.49, so I'll see if I can find a PPA that has the updated version.

Update 2

It turns out that the bug in mountall was irrelevant, since mountall is only invoked when I call mount -a rather than mount /common_mount_point. In fact I was already running mountall v2.53, according to the output of dpkg -s mountall (even though mountall --version told me it was v2.49). This presumably accounts for the fact that sudo mount -a does indeed try multiple fstab lines that refer to the same mount point.

  • Think one level deeper here. Try mounting disk A at /CommonMountPoint/DiskA and Disk B at /CommonMountPoint/DiskB. You're using a file created for non removable disks for a purpose it wasn't intended for. By adding a subdirectory, the system creates an empty place holder.
    – eyoung100
    Nov 12, 2014 at 21:48
  • 1
    @eyoung100 That defeats the object of what I'm trying to do - the goal is to keep the path to the mounted disk containing my data identical, regardless of whether that disk happens to be disk A or disk B. It's always possible to change my backup and processing scripts to take different mount points into account, but I'd prefer not to if I can avoid it.
    – ali_m
    Nov 12, 2014 at 21:56
  • Until Ubuntu updates their repo to 2.50, you may have to stay defeated, as the approach I gave bypasses the bug.
    – eyoung100
    Nov 12, 2014 at 22:11

1 Answer 1


Leverage udev to use the same device name

Instead of listing UUIDs in /etc/fstab, you could list a device name, and set up udev to use the same device name for all of these devices. Put a line like this in a file in /etc/udev/rules.d:

KERNEL=="sd*", ATTRS{serial}=="123456798", NAME="one_of_my_disks%n"


KERNEL=="sd*", ATTRS{serial}=="123456798", SYMLINK+="one_of_my_disks%n"

Run udevadm info -a -n sdb to see what attributes of the disk (like ATTRS{serial}=="123456798" in the example above) you can match against. Note that you can only use multiple attributes but they all have to be from the same section.

Then, in /etc/fstab, use /dev/one_of_my_disks as the block device.

If your disks have different layouts, this is more complicated. You can use auto for the filesystem type; this should work most of the type. If you need different partition numbers or mount options, however, you'll need different fstab entries. You can work around that by editing fstab on the fly through a script invoked by the udev entry, which will be executed when the disk is detected by the system. For example, use the following udev rule:

KERNEL=="sd*", ATTRS{serial}=="123456798", ENV{FSTAB4}="compress=lzo", NAME="one_of_my_disks%n", RUN+="/usr/local/sbin/fstab_update_my_disk"

and the following fstab_update_my_disk script (untested):

/usr/bin/sed -i -e '/^\/dev\/one_of_my_disks1/ s/\([^ \t][^ \t]*[ \t][ \t]*[^ \t][^ \t]*[ \t][ \t]*[^ \t][^ \t]*[ \t][ \t]*\)[^ \t][^ \t]*/\1'"$FSTAB4"'/'

Leverage udev to not care about the mount point

Another approach would be to keep separate fstab entries, with distinct device names and distinct mount points. But use a udev RUN hook to update a symbolic link that points to the mount point.

KERNEL=="sd*", ATTRS{serial}=="123456798", RUN+="/bin/ln -snf /media/disk1 /media/one_of_my_disks"
  • Hmm... That's interesting to know, but presumably I could still only specify a single set of mount options in my /etc/fstab for the single block device name that represents all of my disks? That's not ideal, since some of my disks have different filesystems etc, and would therefore need different mount options.
    – ali_m
    Nov 13, 2014 at 2:27
  • @ali_m Ah, yes, that's trickier. You could update /etc/fstab on the fly. It's a bit of a dirty trick, e.g. it won't play well with version control. An alternate approach could be to keep separate mount points but create a symbolic link. See my updated answer. Nov 13, 2014 at 2:43
  • I'm not a big fan of the idea of updating fstab on the fly (this would also require elevated permissions, so I might as well just sudo mount -a instead). The general concept of hooking into mount events using udev rules looks promising, though. I'll play around with it.
    – ali_m
    Nov 13, 2014 at 9:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .