Re: Disk identifiers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/05/2020 02:08 PM, Peter Grandi wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I was referring to what fdisk -l calls "disk
>> identifier". [...]
> That's not a very fruitful approach :-). The real disk
> identifiers are the serial number or WWN.
>
> What 'fdisk' reports is the identifier of the "label" (called by
> 'fdisk' "Disklabel", which is a metadata block which usually
> contains the partition table, and of which there are several
> types).
>
> For MBR/DOS type labels that is a pretty obscure field at offset
> 0x1B8 on the disk, and it is a 32b field. I personally use it
> to store 4 characters, but it can be any 32-bit value.
>
> That value matters a lot more to MS-Windows than to GNU/Linux,
> which basically ignores it. I find that value used under
> '/dev/disk/by-partuuid/' where it is used to prefix the number
> of the partition for DOS/MBR labeled disks. BTW the entries
> under '/dev/disk/' seem to me a "legacy" mess.
>
> GPT/EFI labels instead have 128b fields which are usually filled
> with UUID-structured random values, and those are not ignored
> and usually appear under '/dev/disk/by-uuid'.
>
> For MD raid sets I like to use GPT labels and refer to RAID set
> members by partition name, where I give those partitions
> meaningful proper-name prefixes. But that's another story.

This is the output from fdisk -l where it is called "Disk identifier":

Disk /dev/sda: 256.1 GB, 256060514304 bytes, 500118192 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk label type: gpt
Disk identifier: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000

and the output from another disk:

Disk /dev/sdc: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes, 3907029168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk label type: gpt
Disk identifier: EF1A3010-0A15-5A4B-A6FC-1B0EA869D0A7

Thus the disk identifier in the first case is not, as I had mentioned seeing in my first e-mail, something like 0x12345678, but rather a UUID-like number.

Should I change the disk identifier for the first disk to something else than all-zeroes? And, if so, should I use a UUID-like number since fdisk presents it as such or should I use a 8-character string?

I




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux