| 1 |
On 27/10/16 09:54 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2016-10-28 3:32 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o |
| 3 |
> <mailto:axs@g.o>>: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL=<name> is not |
| 7 |
> > good? I realize that <name>s are not required when doing a mkfs, but |
| 8 |
> > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should |
| 9 |
> > it be "deprecated"? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I don't think anyone said that the LABEL= syntax is bad; quite the |
| 12 |
> opposite -- WilliamH wants everyone using /dev/disk/by-label/<name> |
| 13 |
> paths in fstab to instead use LABEL=<name> , to avoid issues if udev |
| 14 |
> doesn't create the symlinks before localmount tries to use them. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Indeed nobody ever said "deprecated" some people (/me too) don't like |
| 18 |
> to use labels and prefer UUIDs instead. |
| 19 |
> - in some situations - |
| 20 |
> To complete the statement labels are very good with fleets of servers |
| 21 |
> with predefined and consistent disk layouts, or for some people desktop. |
| 22 |
> When it come to a small number of server with different layouts they |
| 23 |
> are equivalent in functionality but need managing and memory, when you |
| 24 |
> substitute disk for example, simply not worth it. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Best, |
| 27 |
> Francesco |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
UUID is the same situation in this case -- in fstab you can do it by |
| 31 |
UUID=<uuid> or you can do it by /dev/disk/by-uuid/<uuid>. The latter |
| 32 |
form depends on udev finishing up and would have the same issue. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The identifier itself that you use for the partition doesn't need to |
| 35 |
change at all, its just the means with which you use this identifier |
| 36 |
that WilliamH is recommending you change. |
Archives