On 04/28/2011 10:58 AM, Bryan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 19:55, David Gwynne<l...@animata.net> wrote:
amen.
anything that helps us get away from the kernels arbitrary numbering of
devices to identify disks is a good thing.
dlg
Would there be a reason why you wouldn't use DUIDs? Do some older
drives not support it, or some archs not support this?
There's no issue of "drive age" or platform.
You may not want to use it because you might want not want to use it. :)
People with one disk won't care either way, and "/dev/sd0a" is a heck of
a lot easier to remember than 16 random characters.
People with multiple disks need to think about how and what they plan on
doing with them, and think about what should happen in various failure
modes.
I've done things with disks that would break horribly with DUIDs, as
they relied upon the physical connection of the disk. Some could be
redesigned now, some with clear benefit, but I'm not convinced all would
be "better" using DUIDs.
Here's an example:
you set up a softraid set with mirroring, and /altroot handling
duplicating the boot partition. I don't think you want to specify root
on a DUID, as that will change should the first disk be the one that
fails (yes, bootable softraid will change that, but ... then you lose
the benefit of /altroot). Meanwhile, DUID makes the REST of the system
much cleaner after a disk failure event.
Nick.
