If memory serves me right, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If memory serves me right, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > See LINT on details of how to wire down scsi devices...
> > > >
> > > > Your proposal doesn't take adding a second scsi card into account.
> > >
> > > Well, I did not mean that has to be da0, da1, etc., but similar thing
> > > like dac0t0d0, dac0t1d0, ... dac3t4d0, etc. which is much clear what
> > > disk is.
> > > A few people does not like this one because the name is long, and it
> > > is like some commerical configuration. They said that this is Free
> > > software.
> >
> > That's an interesting argument on the part of a few people. The
> > commercial UNIX I first adminned had wired down, short names for disks
> > (rz0, rz1, rz2, ... ). This was very nice.
>
> This one does not resolve the controller problem either as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said.
>
> So, I guess dac0t0, dac0t1, ... dac3t4, will be good enough if we want
> to be short, but anything shorter than this will be meaningless.
Well...I personally prefer the short names. On systems with multiple
controllers, the commercial UNIX I used (Ultrix) just continued its
numbering with rz0, rz1, rz2, ..., rz6, rz7, rz8, ... FreeBSD lets you
do exactly the same thing.
Having long device names is confusing to users who only have one disk
controller (and I'd bet this is the vast majority). It took me a long
time to grok the syntax of Solaris device names and I still get confused
about this. Commercial or free doesn't have anything to do with this
issue...this scheme would force users to remember and type extra
characters that many of them don't need. (/dev/da0s1a is long enough,
but /dev/dac0t0d0s1a is a little ridiculous for someone that has only
one controller and one drive.)
> I guess you missed the point that I do want to wire down the name.
> This is the original debate. But, I do not want to wire down the
> name by hand. The system should be able to take care this simple
> thing. As you mentioned, digit UNIX does it, Solaris does it, why
> not FreeBSD?
No, I was agreeing with you that wiring down names is good. (I did
miss a message or two in the middle of your discussion, apparently, and
that may have contributed to my apparently confusion.)
But I think your proposed long names are confusing, and I claim that
that rebuilding a kernel to get wired-down device names is easy.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say "by hand". I'm
envisioning an environment where you have a lot of similarly-configured
machines. So you build a kernel (based on GENERIC) to wire down
devices ONE TIME, and distribute that kernel out to all the different
machines.
> Because it is FreeWare so we cannot do some thing good
> as commercial UNIXs do?
I don't understand this argument. "Free" (i.e. open source) vs.
commercial doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Cheers,
Bruce.
PGP signature
