From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 26 23:47:47 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D1A106566C; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:47:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 65-241-43-5.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B8214E0F4; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DB759A1.4050201@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:47:45 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110319 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Fridh References: <4DB70949.6090104@FreeBSD.org> <20110426182017.GA92471@freebsd.org> <4DB70F13.6060002@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Alexander Best , Alexander Motin Subject: Re: Why not just name the cam-ata devices the same as the old names? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:47:47 -0000 On 04/26/2011 16:04, Mikael Fridh wrote: > Are labels such a perilous affair that you can't just start > recommending them and/or default to them? As far as I can tell, yes. We have various different tools that do different things, all calling themselves "labels" which don't all work together well. It's also unclear how many (if any) of those solutions will survive the file system being newfs'ed. I made this point elsewhere, but this is an area where linux really has us beat. At install time a UUID is created for a file system if it doesn't already have one and it's referred to that way in fstab. My understanding (although I have yet to test it) is that they survive newfs because they are not located on the fs itself. When I first saw this I thought it was ugly (read, different) but having worked with it a little bit I think it's a much superior method, and would have made the current concerns completely irrelevant. http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/146951 Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/