2016-10-28 16:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected]>:
> On 27/10/16 09:54 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote: > > 2016-10-28 3:32 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL=<name> is > not > > > good? I realize that <name>s are not required when doing a mkfs, > but > > > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, > why should > > > it be "deprecated"? > > > > I don't think anyone said that the LABEL= syntax is bad; quite the > > opposite -- WilliamH wants everyone using /dev/disk/by-label/<name> > > paths in fstab to instead use LABEL=<name> , to avoid issues if udev > > doesn't create the symlinks before localmount tries to use them. > > > > > > Indeed nobody ever said "deprecated" some people (/me too) don't like > > to use labels and prefer UUIDs instead. > > - in some situations - > > To complete the statement labels are very good with fleets of servers > > with predefined and consistent disk layouts, or for some people desktop. > > When it come to a small number of server with different layouts they > > are equivalent in functionality but need managing and memory, when you > > substitute disk for example, simply not worth it. > > > > Best, > > Francesco > > > UUID is the same situation in this case -- in fstab you can do it by > UUID=<uuid> or you can do it by /dev/disk/by-uuid/<uuid>. The latter > form depends on udev finishing up and would have the same issue. > > The identifier itself that you use for the partition doesn't need to > change at all, its just the means with which you use this identifier > that WilliamH is recommending you change. > > > I did already understood the difference, but thanks for clarifying
