> However, this I consider messy. You would have to know how many real
> partitions you have and which ones have how many slices.
> So, it would be more logical to have a naming scheme for
> controller,bus,target,device(lun),partition thus:
> /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0p1 a whole partition
>
> Then, if any slices are found in partitions, you would also have:
> /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0p1s3 a single Solaris slice within a partition
>
> and of course:
> /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0 a whole disc
>
> Leonard: what do you think of this?
I vote for this. In fact, I'll vote twice, three times. The naming scheme
reflects the hardware layout which is exactly what this style of naming
scheme should do.
> Also, if we were to go back to "p" for partition, how about "u" for
> LUN?
'u' for 'unit' [it's easier to sell to the non-believers] :-) yes.
-- [======================================================================] [ Kevin Lentin Email: K.Lentin@cs.monash.edu.au ] [ finger kevinl@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au for PGP public key block. ] [ KeyId: 06808EED FingerPrint: 6024308DE1F84314 811B511DBA6FD596 ] [======================================================================]