Subject: (was Re: The obvious inherent superiority of SVR4 device naming...)
To: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
From: After 5 PM please slip brain through slot in door. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/22/1994 14:29:15
#define AUTHOR "email@example.com (Peter Seebach)"
* That's another issue; it's clearly a bug for the filesystem type to
* override the ability of the system to try* to mount a device. Unix has
* historically given one rope enough to hang oneself with; I personally
* mind not being able to just say "look, I know it doesn't *say* it's a
* ufs filesystem, but believe you me, it is." Not that I'm coexisting with
* SVR4 right now, but I did for quite a while.
I don't think this has anything to do with how you name your devices...
WRT /dev/dsk/c1t0d1s2 > /dev/sd5c: If, as has been suggested, you nail
your devices down in the config file (after you stabilize your system,
otherwise neither scheme works all that well!), it boils down to matter
of preference. If you leave it to the kernel to decide which is which,
you're setting yourself up for surprises.
c1 is the second controller that the kernel finds, not necessarily
the second one in line.
#undef AUTHOR /* "firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Seebach)" */
______________ ___ ________ _____WHO: Greywolf (unto death)
/ ___\ _ \ __\ V / \ / /__ \| | __/WHAT: UNIX System Mangler...er, Admin
\ \| | < _| ` ' \ '` / \/ /|_| _/ WHERE: Ithaca SW, 1301 Marina Village Pkwy
\___|_|\_\__\|_| \/\/ \__/___/_| Alameda, CA 94501 (415) 332-2344 x7255