On Wednesday, 25 November 2020 13:06:49 GMT Dale wrote: > Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 November 2020 14:18:58 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:20:52 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > > My workstation has one NVMe drive and two SATAs. They're always > > > > > > > > detected in the same order, so I've no need to render my fstab > > > > > > > > illegible with UUIDs. I could use labels, but why bother? The old > > > > > > > > system ain't broke, so I've no need to fix it. > > > > > > But you can fix it in your own time, waiting until it breaks is never > > > > > > convenient. > > > > There's nothing to fix, as I said. I'm happy to stick with the > > /dev/sdX syntax for as long as it remains valid. Occam's Razor > > applies: "don't complicate beyond need." > > > > > > Can you imagine an fstab with 22 partitions specified with UUIDs? > > > > > > > > Doesn't bear thinking about. > > > > > > Can you imagine an fstab with 22 partitions? Doesn't bear thinking > > > > about. > > > > > > The NVMe drive, the main one, has 18; I could merge some of those and > > delete a couple that aren't used any more. The packages and distfiles > > directories don't need separate partitions, for example. I suppose > > it's a bit like Topsy, who "just growed." > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter. > > I didn't think I needed to "fix" it either until it hit me and caused > confusion. Eventually I figured out it was mounting the wrong thing but > it was a head scratcher for a while. I was about to start over when I > noticed it was mounting the wrong partitions. I can't recall what > changed the order but suddenly sda and sdb switched. Believe me, when I > got booted, I started setting it up in a way that can't happen again. > > I might add, the more partitions you have, the more likely this is to > bite you at some point. You already have a complicated system with > chainloading bootloaders and such so Occam left the building long ago.
Actually I haven't any of those things. Grub, in particular, will never have a place in my home. I jusr have EFI boot images in the UEFI BIOS. Simple. I do take the point, though. > Do you really need for a hard drive to be recognized differently and > create problems? At the very least, labels would be a much better > option. Labels like ubuntu-home, ubuntu-usr, or redhat-root, or > redhat-usr. Those explain what they are and makes them unique. If you > have more than one version, include part of a version if needed. I'll think about that the very first time I get sda and sdb reversed. Honest. :) > You may recall my hatred of the init thingys. I still hate them. I do. Me too. I still don't use one. > I use them because I want the best chance of my system booting and without > it, that could fail. It may boot 100 times just fine but then one day, it > breaks and won't boot anymore without a init thingy. At that point, I > get to sit here, most likely with no way to get help, and figure out how > to fix it. To me, it's much better to just go ahead and set up using > the thing and not having to worry about that day hitting me. It seems > bad things always happen at the worst moment too. > > If I can start using a init thingy, using labels should be a easy > thing. A walk in the park as the saying goes. ;-) Quite so. As I said, I haven't needed to yet, but I'll think about it in due course. :) You may remember my asking why you need a separate /usr partition. You wouldn't need an init thingy if you merged it into the root partition. I have /var separate for simplicity of backup and recovery, and to contain log-file runaways, but not /usr. -- Regards, Peter.
