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