[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: A FC6 suggestion.



On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 17:03 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:17, Jeff Vian wrote:
> 
> > The uninitiated will not likely be moving drives between machines.  They
> > would do an install on already existing drives and as such the Fedora
> > install/labeling scheme works well. 
> 
> So the idea is to stay uninitiated forever?
> 
No, they move to the next category, as expected.

> > The conflicts occur when previously
> > labeled drives are mixed in a machine as mentioned above.
> 
> Note that the prior scheme of using partition names did not
> have any problems unless you moved them either and then they
> were predictable according to drive positions.  With this
> scheme the problem depends on the disk contents that you aren't
> likely to know ahead of time.
> 
You can easily fall back to that method, and I am sure many of us do
when we encounter this problem. I surely do.

> > Some OSes write a PVID on the physical device that is unique (similar to
> > the way identifiers on LVM logical volumes and volume groups are
> > unique).  This may be a better way since a unique identifier of this
> > sort (physical volume plus logical volume/partition) is guaranteed to
> > not conflict the way the current labels do.
> 
> If someone is going to re-think this, they should also come up
> with a scheme that works when you do a backup and restore to
> a different machine.  There are so many things you have to fix
> by hand (grub, fstab, the NIC hardware addresses) when you
> copy a working machine that I'd be surprised if anyone is rolling
> them out in any volume.
> 
agreed.

> -- 
>   Les Mikesell
>    lesmikesell gmail com
> 
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]