Messages in this thread |  | | Date | 13 Jun 1996 12:28:20 +0200 | From | (Henning Schmiedehausen) | Subject | Re: Ideas for v2.1 |
| |
duprec@jsp.umontreal.ca (DUPRE Christophe) writes:
>Not really a good idea : Let's say you have IDE and SCSI disks: >/dev/hda, /dev/hdb, /dev/sda and /dev/sdb
>With your system, you'd have: >/dev/hda -> /dev/diska >/dev/hdb -> /dev/diskb >/dev/sda -> /dev/diskc >/dev/sdb -> /dev/diskd
>Now one IDE disk is crashed and you remove it. Thus /dev/hdb no longer >exists, and you get this mapping: >/dev/hda -> /dev/diska >/dev/sda -> /dev/diskb >/dev/sdc -> /dev/diskc
So, lets see, how it is currently:
I have
/dev/hda -> IDE /dev/sda -> SCSI ID0 /dev/sdb -> SCSI ID3 /dev/sdc -> SCSI ID4 /dev/sdd -> SCSI ID5
Now I remove SCSI ID3. 'drive does not spin underwater error'
/dev/sda -> SCSI ID0 /dev/sdb -> SCSI ID4 /dev/sdc -> SCSI ID5
:-(
Not too different from the scheme you criticized above. But it is already in there. And IMHO it sucks. :-(
Ciao Henning
-- Henning Schmiedehausen ...side by side in orbit... around a fairer SUN. barnard@forge.franken.de http://www.franken.de/users/forge/henning
In accordance with the normal UNIX design philosophy nuke(8) does not prevent you from nuking yourself. -- nuke(8) manpage
|  |