I've been trying to mount a USB drive that's formatted as FAT32, and getting an error. The drive works fine on Windows machines.

When I try to mount it with sudo mount -t vfat /dev/sdb1 /media/usbdev, I get

 mount:  /dev/sdb1 is not a block device.

When I try to mount /dev/sdb to the same place (sudo mount -t vfat /dev/sdb /media/usbdev), I get

 mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb,
        missing codepage or helper program, or other error

        In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
        dmesg | tail or so.

I've tried Googling around and searching this site. 1 and 2 seem like the most relevant questions, but the solutions proposed there haven't worked. I've tried adding a line to /etc/fstab (/dev/sdb1 /media/usbdev vfat defaults 0 0), also to no avail. I'm pretty confused - what's going on, and what can I do to mount this USB drive? I'd rather not reformat it since I have some important data on there.

Here's what lsblk returns:

 sdb                     8:16   1  29.9G  0 disk  
 └─sdb1                  8:17   1  29.9G  0 part  
 sda                     8:0    0 119.2G  0 disk  
 ├─sda2                  8:2    0   488M  0 part  /boot
 ├─sda3                  8:3    0 118.3G  0 part  
 │ └─sda3_crypt        253:0    0 118.3G  0 crypt 
 │   ├─mint--vg-root   253:1    0 110.4G  0 lvm   /
 │   └─mint--vg-swap_1 253:2    0   7.9G  0 lvm   
 │     └─cryptswap1    253:3    0   7.9G  0 crypt [SWAP]
 └─sda1                  8:1    0   512M  0 part  /boot/efi

And here's the relevant portion of sudo fdisk -l:

 Disk /dev/sdb: 29.9 GiB, 32078036992 bytes, 62652416 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: 0xc3072e18

 Device     Boot Start End       Sectors  Size   Id Type
 /dev/sdb1       96    62652415  62652320 29.9G  c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)

dmesg |tail shows the following:

 [152334.491944]  sdb: sdb1 [152334.493759] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached
 SCSI removable disk [153063.602803]  sdb: sdb1

So, it seems like the device is being recognized - it just won't mount.

I'm new to Linux, so please let me know if I should provide more information. Thanks in advance.

  • Try mounting with -t fat and -o fat=32 – Raman Sailopal Aug 4 '17 at 13:05
  • @RamanSailopal No luck... sudo mount -t fat /dev/sdb1 /media/usbdev returns mount: unknown filesystem type 'fat' and sudo mount -o fat=32 /dev/sdb1 /media/usbdev returns mount: /dev/sdb1 is not a block device – penGuinKeeper Aug 4 '17 at 13:08
  • Returns what? What's the message returned and the output from dmesg? – Raman Sailopal Aug 4 '17 at 13:10
  • dmesg | tail shows ` [158362.425970] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 62652416 512-byte logical blocks: (32.1 GB/29.9 GiB) [158362.426678] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off [158362.426680] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 [158362.427394] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA [158362.430942] xhci_hcd 0000:00:14.0: WARN Event TRB for slot 7 ep 4 with no TDs queued? [158362.432276] sdb: sdb1 [158362.433792] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk ` – penGuinKeeper Aug 4 '17 at 13:12
  • fat isn't a Linux filesystem type, you want vfat. (the older one is msdos). See man mount, "fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems". – sourcejedi Aug 4 '17 at 15:10

"Is not a block device" is pretty specific. It suggests you've accidentally overwritten the block device with a regular file at some point. In this case, ls -l /dev/sdb1 will show something other than b in the first column. Here's an example from my system:

$ ls -l /dev/sda1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 8, 1 Aug  3 08:32 /dev/sda1

- in the first column means a regular file. d is a directory. b is a block device node. c is a character device node. p is a named pipe. s should be a named unix socket, I think.

This particular problem should go away if you just reboot. /dev/ is a tmpfs, it is recreated from scratch on each boot.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.