Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

[Francesco Riosa]

2016-10-28 16:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>:

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