Subject: Re: partition bookkeeping
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Oleg Polyanski <email@example.com>
Date: 09/22/1999 22:25:53
>>>>> "G" == Greywolf writes:
G> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Frank van der Linden wrote: # # Now, what should be
G> discussed (and has been) is a naming scheme # for device nodes. It's a
G> good opportunity to get rid of # the mess that is wd/sd naming, 'c' or
G> 'd' for the name of the # "raw" disk device, etc.
G> I will agree with getting rid of 'c' or 'd', great.
G> But what does discarding wd/sd buy us?
G> Keeping it makes it easier to identify disks on disparate controllers.
I'm not sure that it makes our life easier. Right now we have
floating disk naming scheme - disk detected first will get number `0'
even if it has, for example, SCSI ID 5 so when I add another disk
with SCSI ID number 2 (for example, I would like to add large /opt
file system) it becomes first (i.e. sd0), not the former `first'
disk. You cannot mount root fs without editing your `/etc/fstab'.
It's weird. Disk naming scheme must depend on device physical
properties (SCSI ID, master/slave or something like that). But I
don't think that Solaris naming scheme is perfect - it depends in
much degree on underlying hardware, where each device or controller
maps to the right slot that makes the life of service engineer much
easier with UE6000, for example; if you will take a look on
Solaris/x86 you will see that naming scheme is emulated on PC
hardware and that is why it looks so unnatural.
probably would be better but..
Another solution would be logical volume manager that would
completely avoid the separation between different devices but it's a