Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:36:38 +1100 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: no need for a devfs |
| |
James Mastros writes: > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Richard Gooch wrote: > James Mastros writes: (Me) > On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Phil Brutsche wrote: (PB) > On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard Gooch wrote: (RG) > RG> The incosistency can be considered a bad thing. Unless some change is > RG> planned for the IDE subsystem (along the same lines) consistency is a good > RG> thing.
Actually, I didn't write the lines above.
> Me> Umm... the IDE subsystem is already like this. We have > Me> hda - 1st channel, master > Me> hdb - 1st channel, slave > Me> hdc - 2nd channel, master > Me> hdd - 2nd channel, slave > Me> ... > Me> > Me> Then you follow those with a number indicating the paritition. The > Me> difference between current SCSI practice and IDE is this: If you take out > Me> hdb, hdc remains hdc. But if you remove sdb, sdc becomes sdb. > RG> > RG> That's right. And it's a pain. > > Huha? In what way? I like being able to disconnect my cdrom (which was hdb, > due to cable length), which was causing inablity to boot (its ICs appear to > be fried) withought moving my /usr partition (hdc2). The naming of the > partitons is somwhat annoying, but ahvell.
I mean that the IDE way is better. With SCSI, I have: ID0 -> sda (has /, /data) ID1 -> sdb (removable) ID2 -> sdc (has swap, /home)
I then remove ID1, so I get: ID0 -> sda ID2 -> sdb
so ID2 has been renamed! If ID1 is a removable drive, I have to edit /etc/fstab each and every time. It's a royal pain.
Regards,
Richard....
| |