Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 May 1997 10:14:02 -0400 (EDT) | From | Chris Arguin <> | Subject | Re: SCSI disk devices |
| |
On Fri, 9 May 1997, Brian N. Borg wrote:
> > Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu> writes: > > > .... > > > If we do that, we _definately_ have to adopt something like the > > > Solaris /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s3 scheme. It gets really tiring trying to out- > > > guess what the kernel is going to name a new disk when it's put online. > > > > On Mon, 5 May 1997 19:31:44 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > > .... > > > >I had always thought that the right approach would go far beyond > > >scsidev; if you have a volume management daemon that would automatically > > >do the right thing based on the volume ID (pretty much all filesystems > > >have them now: ext2, iso9660, even MS-DOS FAT), then who cares what the > > >device name is? > > > > Although both approaches have their advantages, I agree with the latter. > Require a unique "volume label" for each filesystem and use it for the > device name: /dev/dsk/"volume label". > > This is the Data General approach in dgux. The only disadvantage is > that > if you do a complete copy, or break a mirror, your volume label is not > unique any more. DG does provide a way out, I believe they also put a > serial number on each slice.
I would tend to think that using both schemes wouldn't be so bad. I like the Solaris approach for it's "elegance", but Naming the partitions using the volume label seems much more practical in most cases. The most obvious problem with that I can see is that your CD-ROM's label would change constantly.
Maybe if the kernel created the volume ID names as sym-links, so that you could also easily tell where that drive was just by looking at them.
-- Chris Arguin | "...All we had were Zeros and Ones -- And cpa@hopper.unh.edu | sometimes we didn't even have Ones." +--------------+ - Dilbert, by Scott Adams http://leonardo.sr.unh.edu/arguin/home.html |
| |