Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:12:29 +0100 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD Message-ID: <19EED306-9AA8-4DFE-8164-331C1DAD28CC@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <565CB55B-9A75-47F4-A88B-18FA8556E6A2@samsco.org> References: <314B600D-E8E6-4300-B60F-33D5FA5A39CF@sarenet.es> <565CB55B-9A75-47F4-A88B-18FA8556E6A2@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 22, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Scott Long wrote: > Look up SCSI device wiring in /sys/conf/NOTES. That's one solution to = static naming, just with a slightly different angle than Solaris. I do = agree with your general thesis here, and either wiring should be made a = much more visible and documented feature, or a new mechanism should be = developed to provide naming stability. Please let me know what you = think of the wiring mechanic. The mechanism used in Solaris has, in my opinion, two benefits: it is = used by default, which is important. It means less troublesome = installations, less time bombs lurking. The second important benefit is that, especially with many disks, it's = easier (at least for me) to think in terms of controllers and disks, = rather than "disk number 47". But well, it can be different for many = people. Of course, a big advantage for Solaris was Sun hardware at least in the = golden years, where everything was well predictable. PCs are chaos, and = Intel based servers have inherited the worst of the PC chaos.=20 But a good mechanism, and, I think, working by default, is badly needed. = And I would advocate for a more "Solaris-like" approach. Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19EED306-9AA8-4DFE-8164-331C1DAD28CC>