David Zeuthen wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:00 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
But the old names were predictable; the new ones aren't - when I move a
disk to a new controller/drive position, I know about it.
Uhm, no. You were just relying on a) limitations in the Linux kernel to
probe devices in a sequential fashion (see big-iron boxes with tens of
thousands of disks why this won't work); and b) the order of your
controllers on the PCI bus. Trying to argue it was "predictable" when it
was a "coincidence" is an interesting spin on reality. It's also wrong;
there's a reason that RHL and Fedora been using LABEL= for ages.
OK, that's at least partly right but you forgot to tell me what to call
the device when creating the label for filesystems that support it - or
what name to use for access to the raw device for operations like image
copies and addition/removal from raid arrays. The underlying problem
can't be solved at the filesystem layer.
What I actually would argue is that a distribution making such changes
should supply tools to migrate configurations based on old conventions
to the new ones. Maybe Fedora doesn't have users with hundreds of
machines and data that needs to span years of operation, but a unix-like
system should be designed to make that practical.
No, Fedora is about being on the bleeding edge and creating a system
where you don't *need* to migrate configuration files because the files
will be correct if they are using stable identifiers for devices.
I haven't found that to be the case. And I don't see any reason for
today's experimental change to end up being the one that sticks.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
