On 09/19/2009 10:39 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 18:19:05 +0100, > James Allsopp <jamesaallsopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> but why isn't idenitfied by /dev/sda2 like partitions normally are? I'm not >> understanding why a UUID is necessary, as opposed to a standard /dev/sd >> pointer to the root partition. >> > Things are moving more toward using UUIDs. UUIDs are more stable in identifying > file systems, raid arrays than using generic names. That makes them better > fitted for the job. > Yes, somewhat true. But I still use carefully managed labels instead of hard to remember UUIDs and it you lose it, its a pain to recover. It's easier for me to see: f11-boot, f11-root, f-App1, u9-boot, u9-root, ..., w2kPro, w2kSvr, VistaH, XpPro, and so on. I have many different OSes dispersed over many HDs. As for grub itself, I use a grub "tree-structure" and the primary boot grub so happens to be based on F8-grub and on the drive's 1st partition, followed with whatever grubs each OS supports and each in it's own boot/root partitions per drive and usually all in the extended partition. All of my OS SATA drives uses the maximum of 15 partitions, so that the tables are always preserved, I learned this the hard way. All in all, it works very well. The point is, labels and/or UUID are not a requirement, but a perhaps convention? This could change though, but I hope not. FWIW Dan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
