> Not really a good idea : Let's say you have IDE and SCSI disks:
> /dev/hda, /dev/hdb, /dev/sda and /dev/sdb
>
> With your system, you'd have:
> /dev/hda -> /dev/diska
> /dev/hdb -> /dev/diskb
> /dev/sda -> /dev/diskc
> /dev/sdb -> /dev/diskd
>
> Now one IDE disk is crashed and you remove it. Thus /dev/hdb no longer
> exists, and you get this mapping:
> /dev/hda -> /dev/diska
> /dev/sda -> /dev/diskb
> /dev/sdc -> /dev/diskc
>
> So now your /etc/fstab will mount the wrong partitions...
>
> Well, for that matter if you remove the first IDE disk in the current
> setup you'll screw up your partitions, too. Maybe we need to go to a
Not really : the IDE controller shouldn't accept a slave disk if there's
no corresponding master. Even if it doesn't, hdb will stay hdb because
hdb is the slave disk on the primary controller.
With SCSI, you can play with the IDs to decide in which order the disks
appear.
> system like what Solaris uses, where the controller type, controller
> number, disk/target number, and partition number are all encoded into
> the name.
That would be a solution... But then, it's hard to represent using the
major/minor number, isn't it ?
Christophe Dupre Universite de Montreal
Internet: duprec@jsp.umontreal.ca Qc, Canada
Montreal, Qc, Canada
"Nous ne sommes pas libres de ne pas etre libres, nous sommes obliges de
l'etre" - Fernando Savater
-- Geek Code 2.1 --
GCS d-- H+ s:++ g+ !p au-* a19 w+ v+ C++(+++) UIL++>+++ P+>++ L++
3- E---- N++ K W- M- V-- Y+ t++ 5++ !j R+ G- tv b++
D+ e+ u** h->++ f+ r++ n---(----) y+
#include <disclaimer.h>