I do agree with that. It is much easier from a documentation perspective as well as maintenance (when dealing with lots), to have command line procedures and then code them into scripts.
I only have a few images that have "by-id" used. And now, my installation/generation procedures have been updated to specify "by-path" in the fstab. I guess there was a discussion about why the default was changed to "by-id" on this list a while back. I can understand why the LPAR group of penguins wouldn't like the old method of dasd assignment being in the order they were sensed, but I fail to understand why "by-id" would be good from their point of view either. Under VM, where the Directory is king, the hardware order is overruled, by directory specifications. It would seem to me that anyone using "by-id" would have a big migration problem when: 1. Cloning images 2. Disaster recovery 3. Migrating to new DASD 4. For that matter, using flashcopy to reduce downtime for backups (what I'm trying to do) Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> Adam Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/9/2008 3:53 PM >>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Adam Thornton wrote: > > Plus, I just don't like yast. I guess I'd better explain lest I ruffle too many feathers. YaST is fine if you're administering one guest. It becomes less useful in an environment where you have lots of penguins, because it is not trivially scriptable. I like CLIs. Adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
