| 1 |
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:49:29 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > As I said about my ex once, time tells. Sometimes, time is the |
| 5 |
> > only thing that does tell too. Reminds me of wine although I don't |
| 6 |
> > drink it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at udev and mdev as winner |
| 9 |
> or loser. I'm not trying to be even-handed or fair in this; I just |
| 10 |
> think they service different needs. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Currently, the only advantage I see for udev in a server is the |
| 13 |
> ability to give network interfaces meaningful names... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Even that isn't all that useful for me. For my servers I know exactly |
| 17 |
which interface is which (turns out that when Dell give you 4 on-board |
| 18 |
nics they always come up in the same order. Pretty useful.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We do the proper thing and document every bit of hardware in a central |
| 21 |
repo (ocsng makes this automagic) and the way it is when the box is |
| 22 |
racked is the way it stays till it's switched off 5 years later. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Aside from disks and RAM I've only had 2 hardware failures in 4 years |
| 25 |
(both were Adaptec RAID cards) so changing hardware is an unusual event |
| 26 |
(and rather major at that when it does happen). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For me, udev is more of a hindrance in the data centre than a help. I |
| 29 |
simply do not need it at all, so mdev interests me a lot. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
On my notebooks and test/development VMs, that's different. Those need |
| 32 |
udev. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
On something as complex as a node manager, I do not believe there is |
| 35 |
such a thing as one-size fits all or a universal design. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives