Re: should an end user stick to a kernel with an initrd?
On Fri, Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:34:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 19:07 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
> >>
> >> Traditional device names, such as /dev/sda, /dev/sdb,
> >> (and therefore the partitions on those devices, such
> >> as /dev/sda1, /dev/sdb1, etc.) are not assigned in a predictable
> >> manner anymore. This device name assignment can change from one boot
> >> to the next.
> >
> > This never happened on my machine.
>
> This won't happen if you have just one disk. ;)
>
> On a more serious note, do you really think that all the people
> maintaining distributions thought "using sdX is far too simple and
> easy, let's start using human-non-parsable UUIDs?!"
1. Saying traditional disks names not siigned in a predictable manner
seem to contradict the fact that one can write
root=/dev/hdd3
in the kernel command line, such as in lilo.
2. I have 2 disks. It never happened to me.
3. In the old days, the way you physically attached the disks, be it
IDE or SCSI, completely determined their enumeration in the hd
and sd name space. I think that has not changed by newer kernels.
I guess Sievers was reffering to that fact when he
also points out that the device naming policy is
already in the kernel
Quote taken from https://lwn.net/Articles/331818/.
Some of the comments in that URL seem to me supporting my claim.
4. I think that the LABEL mechanism of /etc/fstab is different,
predated, and more rigid, from that of a UUID. Again, it seem to
me supported by some of the comments in
https://lwn.net/Articles/331818/.
5. Indeed, network interface enumeration was not that solid, and
required user space tools to remedie.
Reply to: