begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:06:16AM -0700: > kelsey hudson wrote: [snip] > > I cannot stress enough: > > > > Label your filesystems and mount by label.
Bleah. Then you need to mess about with watching drive lights and running find or sync or something to remember what filesystem is on which drive. [snip] > > The only time this is apt to become a problem is when you stick another > > disk from another system into your machine and attempt to boot -- if the > > labels on the other disk match labels on your disk, then the mount > > syscall will simply take the first one it finds (which may not be the > > correct one). .. > > Hence, if you are one of those who _do_ tend to juggle disks a lot, then > it is practically imperative that you use *unique* labels .. or use the > UUID= instead of LABEL= identification scheme. Hm. This might work for flash drives, I suppose. We sneakernet with 'em these days, after all. > All-in-all, I prefer traditional device ids for myself. First thing I do > is get rid of LABEL=BOOT (etc) thingies. But, I'm willing/able to poke > around if and when something goes wrong. I like knowing that *this* partition is on *that* disk. I like SCSI's manually-set ids. And Sun's controller/target//slice notation, actually, although it took me awhile to get used to it. -- Trying to manually manage 127 device ids might not be so fun. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
