On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:16:59PM +0100, Roger Price wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Nicolas George wrote: > > > Roger Price (12024-11-26): > > > You have to specify sda5 or sdb5. > > There is nothing wrong with having to specify sda5 or sdb5. > > Indeed, and it's the only way for Raid specification. For example > /proc/mdstat contains no mention of device UUIDs. > > > It is only a problem if you want to specify now and expect it to be > > still valid after the next reboot. > > I'm guessing that this feature is something systemd has given us.
No. It has always been a problem [1]. It has become more acute the more dynamic hardware has become. Nowadays, if you dangle off your machine a bunch of storage devices on USB, the order they are seen depends on the USB bus enumeration. I'm not very happy with the so-called "persistent device names" myself (that's why my disk is still /dev/sda, and my net interfaces wlan0 and eth0), but I have the luxury to /know/ my hardware setup and it being fairly stable. Those stable device names were invented to solve a problem, and they were there long before systemd. Not a friend of systemd myself either, but it's important to stick to the facts. Cheers [1] I stumbled first time upon this around the early 2000s, when we were making a small-series firewall device with 4 ethernet cards on it. Now which one is for "outside", which ones "inside"? Could we guarantee that, say, the first slot was always eth0? Turned out, no. Any BIOS update could mess up the order. -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
