On Thu 19 May 2016 at 07:46:10 (+0200), deloptes wrote: > Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: > > On 18/05/16 22:02, deloptes wrote: > >> Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: > >>> On 17/05/16 18:02, Felix Miata wrote: > >>>> Mounting by UUID is an optional default. Mounting life is simpler here, > >>>> because I don't use UUID mounting on any of my hundreds of multiboot > >>>> installations. Most of my mounts are by LABEL, strings I as a fallible > >>>> human choose and can remember, according to usage, disk name and/or > >>>> hostname. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the very useful pointers. I don't know who is the culprit, > >>> but fstab has an entry for swap with a UUID that is not consistent with > >>> the actual UUID for the swap partition. I'm going with your advice and > >>> switch to using labels. > >> > >> UUID is better flexible solution in many cases - why not updating fstab > >> to have the correct uuid? > > > > Because I prefer an identifier that I can remember. :-) > > Haha, that's fair enough. It took me about 1h to reverse the setup to paper, > that I have done few years ago on one server with 12disks > Not only uuid, but crypt and lvm on top. I finally draw a map with this. > I suggest not relaying on memory anyway ;-)
In the land of car analogies, I think of Serial numbers as VIN, LABELs as number-plate/tag/rego (I write the LABEL onto disks with marker pen), partitions UUIDs as the number on a V5 registration document (UK parlance), UUIDs as the 16-digit number on a V11 (registration renewal). Cheers, David. http://laughbreak.com/lists/if-microsoft-built-cars/