On 06/23/2010 03:30 PM, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:02:36 -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: >> Whether or not these are his reasons, I can tell you why that is a wise >> move. UUIDs are unique to the device/filesystem. The major advantage of >> using UUIDs is that you don't have to worry about reordering of disks by >> the kernel when it sees it in a different order than previous. > > Yes, I know. > > But if the installer has setup (by its own) as default method for naming > devices the old one and I am not experiencing any problem with that, for > sure I won't change that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure. But you can also avoid breakage through proper administration. >> This isn't recommended, because if the Linux kernel developers change >> drivers, and the drives become a new device (just as it happened when >> ditching the PATA driver for SATA, and /dev/hda became /dev/sda), your >> partitions/volumes won't mount. Instead, you should either be using >> LABELs or UUIDs. > > I know, I know... but Lenny developers decided to go this way for any > reason and I will respect that. I'm aware that nowadays any modern > distribution is using "uuid" or "id" at least in "/etc/fstab" but as I > said, I still have not seen any good reason to change it. So, you blindly accept what the developers think is good for your system? I understand they're developers for a reason, but even developers make mistakes. And having "/dev/sd??" in your /etc/fstab just might be one of them. FWIW, when the kernel switched disk drivers from PATA to SATA for identifying IDE drives, I had already moved my /etc/fstab to UUIDs, and I didn't have a problem with the upgrade. Friends of mine, however, got to rescue their system, because it wouldn't boot. To each their own. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature