Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:28:08 -0500 From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: Andrey Fesenko <f0andrey@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS should prefer the most specific... or something. Message-ID: <CACpH0MdQKuHD9XNRh=VYa6nHh5YpQnpa-yjmHyk08j7mZUEg1g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BK5SrP=p7xqFOjPM4BvDuyitM951biu8ZNoKuin8A_TfeG1xQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACpH0Meg5MjOGCohSMrAdwdRG_smVNY6CNVRaUSXw9cq0x2YsA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BK5SrP=p7xqFOjPM4BvDuyitM951biu8ZNoKuin8A_TfeG1xQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Andrey Fesenko <f0andrey@gmail.com> wrote: > > "A disk can be specified by a full path to the device or the geom(4) > provider name" see zpool(8) > For example gpt lables > > Yeah, no. You didn't read carefully. Let me be more clear. Some random rejig of device names causes zfs to abandon your carefully constructed name. GPT and GPT labels are more stable, but some machines will not allow a GPT label. Anyways, after the random event, you have maximally long, low-signal-to-noise ratio names.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACpH0MdQKuHD9XNRh=VYa6nHh5YpQnpa-yjmHyk08j7mZUEg1g>