Re: Ideas for v2.1

Henning Schmiedehausen (barnard@forge.franken.de)
13 Jun 1996 12:28:20 +0200

duprec@jsp.umontreal.ca (DUPRE Christophe) writes:

>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, lets see, how it is currently:

I have

/dev/hda -> IDE
/dev/sda -> SCSI ID0
/dev/sdb -> SCSI ID3
/dev/sdc -> SCSI ID4
/dev/sdd -> SCSI ID5

Now I remove SCSI ID3. 'drive does not spin underwater error'

/dev/sda -> SCSI ID0
/dev/sdb -> SCSI ID4
/dev/sdc -> SCSI ID5

:-(

Not too different from the scheme you criticized above. But it is
already in there. And IMHO it sucks. :-(

Ciao
Henning

-- 
Henning Schmiedehausen       ...side by side in orbit... around a fairer SUN.
barnard@forge.franken.de     http://www.franken.de/users/forge/henning


In accordance with the normal UNIX design philosophy nuke(8) does not
prevent you from nuking yourself. -- nuke(8) manpage