From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 4 23:49:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2705A1065670 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:49:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juli@clockworksquid.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f207.google.com (mail-gx0-f207.google.com [209.85.217.207]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39BB8FC18 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:49:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juli@clockworksquid.com) Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3so651518gxk.19 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.106.3 with SMTP id e3mr2312202agc.54.1244157509996; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Juli Mallett Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:18:09 -0700 Message-ID: To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Is anything being done to un-break partition names? X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:49:06 -0000 Hey folks, If I install 7.2 (or old 8-CURRENT) and partition a drive "dangerously dedicated" and answer No when asked if I want to create a true partition entry, and then install as normal, my system is set up with partitions named like da0s1a. Newer 8-CURRENT instead names the devices da0a, which means root mount fails, etc., until one updates /etc/fstab. This also seems to confuse sysinstall, which appears to expect labeling da0s1 to work even if you're in dangerously-dedicated mode =97 though I might be misunderstanding the interactions there; randi@ suggests it's just a problem with sanitizing disk names in libdisk, although when I built sysinstall with a patched libdisk and tried to use it when booting from an 8-CURRENT (snapshot as of a few weeks back) livefs disk, it seemed to have other problems with the device names. This seems like a huge POLA violation and has eaten several hours of my life in terms of fixing servers that were tracking 8-CURRENT and failed to boot up because of the need to change /etc/fstab that wasn't documented in UPDATING. Is anything being done to add compatibility slice names, or to teach mergemaster about the change? I don't know enough about what all is going on on disk to know whether this is something that just affects dangerously-dedicated disks, but it seems to be consistently biting me, and I can only imagine how much trouble it's going to cause others. Was this change even intentional? Juli.