On Thu 20 Apr 2023 at 22:16:56 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote: > On 20/04/2023 19:05, songbird wrote: > > Default User wrote: > > > And when partitions were named /dev/hda5, not > > > 6a105a72-f5d5-441b-b926-1e405151ee84.
With modern hardware, you'd probably not want to go back to those device names, because the way the buses work, the internal drives can be assigned different names according to what's plugged into the computer. > > i use labels on all of my partitions and give them a > > legible name. those are what i use in my fstab and also > > in any grub or refind configs. > > > > i hate UUIDS. i do understand what they're for and know > > about them, but i do not need them for the simple stuff i'm > > doing. > > Since Default User is playing with restoring partitions from backup > and cloning disks lies somewhere nearby, it may happen that 2 disks > with identical partition labels may be installed simultaneously. > > Partition UUIDs are affected as well, Precisely, and users with a small collection of disks are far more likely to anticipate and rectify a LABEL collision than a UUID one. Humans prefer working with names and small numbers rather than 128-bit numbers. It takes little effort to devise a satisfactory naming scheme. > but e.g. sgdisk has a dedicated > option: > https://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/sgdisk.html > > -G, --randomize-guids > > Randomize the disk's GUID and all partitions' unique GUIDs (but not > > their partition type code GUIDs). This function may be used after > > cloning a disk in order to render all GUIDs once again unique Very useful for the sysadmin who has a way of keeping track of the filesystem and partition UUIDS on each disk; the point being that UUIDs scale well, particularly when handled by software. Repurposing a well-known meme¹: UUIDs are for people who treat their disks like cattle, LABELs are for those who treat them like pets. Were I using UUIDs for unlocking and mounting disks at the command line, or in files like fstab, the giveaway is that I would have to depend on the machine to tell me what the UUIDs were, either by completion, or by copy/paste. Seriously, no one ever types a UUID into a computer, do they? > P.S. Some people hate consistent network device naming that was > introduced to solve the same problem with eth0-like names as the one > caused widespread of UUID in fstab instead of /dev/hdaX. That's not the same problem at all. Network device names aren't, and don't need to be, unique across even just two machines. What they need to be is stable and persistent on each individual machine. Typically, the people who dislike them seem to be those who have no necessity for them, often because their machines contain but a single device. It seems simple to configure any device names you like, so I don't really understand why they complain. ¹ originally applied to servers, I believe. Cheers, David.
