Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). That's my doubt. Last time I've read about, you needed some script to load the labels. Claudio Roberto França Pereira (a.k.a. Spidey) You cannot use labels with the root= parameters. That was provided as some kind of hack a few years ago but has been removed since. You either need to use an initramfs for labels or resort to UUIDs. See http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Just tried root=PARTUUID= failed. Checked my genblk.c and the changes don't appear in the 2.6.36 or 2.6.39 kernels on my system. When did (does) the PARTUUID syntax support get released? tnx, Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Am 05.10.2011 15:29, schrieb Michael A. Koerber: I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). That's my doubt. Last time I've read about, you needed some script to load the labels. Claudio Roberto França Pereira (a.k.a. Spidey) You cannot use labels with the root= parameters. That was provided as some kind of hack a few years ago but has been removed since. You either need to use an initramfs for labels or resort to UUIDs. See http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Just tried root=PARTUUID= failed. Checked my genblk.c and the changes don't appear in the 2.6.36 or 2.6.39 kernels on my system. When did (does) the PARTUUID syntax support get released? tnx, Mike 2.6.37: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_37#line-106 I definitely see the changes in gentoo-sources-2.6.39-r3. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On 2011-10-05 20:54, walt wrote: You might think, as I did, that PARTUUID stands for the UUID of the partition you're searching for -- not true :( PARTUUID stands for Partition Table UUID, which is entirely different from a Partition UUID. Clear as mud, eh? IMHO it does seem like a better solution with a file system independent UUID... I only hope the implementation is good. :-/ I posted a HOWTO on the subject here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/225071 Thanks! Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:54 PM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/05/2011 06:29 AM, Michael A. Koerber wrote: Just tried root=PARTUUID= failed. Checked my genblk.c and the changes don't appear in the 2.6.36 or 2.6.39 kernels on my system. When did (does) the PARTUUID syntax support get released? This is very obscure and confusing if you don't already know the history of that code. You might think, as I did, that PARTUUID stands for the UUID of the partition you're searching for -- not true :( PARTUUID stands for Partition Table UUID, which is entirely different from a Partition UUID. Clear as mud, eh? Only GUID/EFI partition tables have a UUID -- not DOS partition tables. I posted a HOWTO on the subject here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/225071 There were some patches posted a few months ago in LKML, not sure if they are in mainline kernel yet, but they allowed for this syntax: root=PARTUUID=UUID/PARTNROFF=%d where %d is the partition number offset. Basically it lets you choose the Nth partition within the specified partition table UUID.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Am 05.10.2011 20:54, schrieb walt: On 10/05/2011 06:29 AM, Michael A. Koerber wrote: Just tried root=PARTUUID= failed. Checked my genblk.c and the changes don't appear in the 2.6.36 or 2.6.39 kernels on my system. When did (does) the PARTUUID syntax support get released? This is very obscure and confusing if you don't already know the history of that code. You might think, as I did, that PARTUUID stands for the UUID of the partition you're searching for -- not true :( PARTUUID stands for Partition Table UUID, which is entirely different from a Partition UUID. Clear as mud, eh? Only GUID/EFI partition tables have a UUID -- not DOS partition tables. I posted a HOWTO on the subject here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/225071 Ah, bummer. It even reads so in the patch I've been posting here: * The function will return the first partition which contains a matching * UUID value in its partition_meta_info struct. This does not search * by filesystem UUIDs. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 15:03 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-03, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: Just recently I've run in to problems because my hard drives are not detected in a predictable order, so my fstab that mount /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1 sometimes result in directory trees in the wrong places (/dev/sda seems consistent, but I don't know why). I still don't know what changed to cause disks ordering to become non-deterministic. I recently upgraded from a single-core CPU to a dual-core CPU. Would that do it? What's the recommended way to fix this? After a bit more googling, it looks like this is what disk labels are for. Never used them before, but it looks like it's time to give them a go. They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. I use LABEL=/Whatever for all file systems mounted on my Dell D830. The main drive (most of the time) is /dev/sda. Sometimes I'll insert a second drive in the machine (in the side battery slot) then power up. This drive gets the /dev/sda assignment. I'm guessing since it doesn't have a /boot directory on it the system fails to start. If I power up w/o this second drive, and wait until the kernel start reading the s/u scripts, I can insert the drive (during bootup) and everything is mounted the way I intended. Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:29, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-10-04, Michael A. Koerber m...@ll.mit.edu wrote: I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). That's my doubt. Last time I've read about, you needed some script to load the labels. Claudio Roberto França Pereira (a.k.a. Spidey) hardMOB - HTForum - @spideybr Engenharia de Computação - UFES 2006/1
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-04, Michael A. Koerber m...@ll.mit.edu wrote: I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). There is something on the gentoo wiki about doing it in an initramfs: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs#UUID.2FLABEL_Root_Mounting (I've never tried it)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Paul Hartman wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Grant Edwardsgrant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-04, Michael A. Koerberm...@ll.mit.edu wrote: I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). There is something on the gentoo wiki about doing it in an initramfs: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs#UUID.2FLABEL_Root_Mounting (I've never tried it) I think grub2 can use labels. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-04, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. I assume that name clashes can be avoided by using hostname-label. My question is... are there any circumstances where you can use UUIDs but not labels, or visa versa? If so, I'd prefer to go with the more robust option from day 1, rather than switch later. The only thing I came across was a mention that some filesystems (e.g. VFAT) don't support labels. Though all the good ones appear to. VFAT supports labels. mkfs.vfat -n sets the label name at creation time: there must be a way to change it later. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
You can use whatever you want whenever you want. Exactly. Just start naming them different birds or your favorite genus and species. Just pick something and stick with it. I don't know if you have enough room for Anas_platyrhynchos, but you get my drift.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Am 04.10.2011 16:47, schrieb Spidey: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:29, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com mailto:grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-04, Michael A. Koerber m...@ll.mit.edu mailto:m...@ll.mit.edu wrote: I have found that use of LABEL=FOO in /etc/fstab doesn't always solve the problem of disks being reassigned during boot. That's because fstab isn't used during boot. What root= setting is passed to your kernel by your bootloader? Is that using /dev/sda1 or a label? In order to use a label, I _think_ you need some special magic in an initrd (at least that used to be the case according to what I've googled). That's my doubt. Last time I've read about, you needed some script to load the labels. Claudio Roberto França Pereira (a.k.a. Spidey) You cannot use labels with the root= parameters. That was provided as some kind of hack a few years ago but has been removed since. You either need to use an initramfs for labels or resort to UUIDs. See http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:59:57PM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote You cannot use labels with the root= parameters. That was provided as some kind of hack a few years ago but has been removed since. You either need to use an initramfs for labels or resort to UUIDs. See http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Thanks. I had asked earlier in the thread if there are situations where I can use one, but not the other. Given your answer, I'll go with UUID for future installs. That answers the question for fstab. BTW, I did some Google research and found that LILO can boot with UUID. See... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Persistent_block_device_naming The important thing to note is... - do *NOT* use root configuration option; e.g. root=blah_blah_blah - instead, specify root in the append line; e.g... append = video=640x480 root=blah_blah_blah -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-10-03, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: Just recently I've run in to problems because my hard drives are not detected in a predictable order, so my fstab that mount /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1 sometimes result in directory trees in the wrong places (/dev/sda seems consistent, but I don't know why). I still don't know what changed to cause disks ordering to become non-deterministic. I recently upgraded from a single-core CPU to a dual-core CPU. Would that do it? What's the recommended way to fix this? After a bit more googling, it looks like this is what disk labels are for. Never used them before, but it looks like it's time to give them a go. They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. Good luck. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Grant Edwards After a bit more googling, it looks like this is what disk labels are for. Never used them before, but it looks like it's time to give them a go. They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. AFAIK that benefit of labels can also be a danger. If you have multiple systems and use the same label naming scheme on all of them (for example you call your partitions root home swap etc.) and someday you plug the HDD from one system into the other, it could cause confusion by potentially choosing the wrong one. But someone can correct me if I'm wrong. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. AFAIK that benefit of labels can also be a danger. If you have multiple systems and use the same label naming scheme on all of them (for example you call your partitions root home swap etc.) and someday you plug the HDD from one system into the other, it could cause confusion by potentially choosing the wrong one. But someone can correct me if I'm wrong. :) I think we had that conversation one or two weeks ago, in the context of lvm volume names. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Grant Edwards After a bit more googling, it looks like this is what disk labels are for. Never used them before, but it looks like it's time to give them a go. They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. AFAIK that benefit of labels can also be a danger. If you have multiple systems and use the same label naming scheme on all of them (for example you call your partitions root home swap etc.) and someday you plug the HDD from one system into the other, it could cause confusion by potentially choosing the wrong one. But someone can correct me if I'm wrong. :) You are right. But a) if you are swaping harddrives around, you better know what you are doing, and b) nothing terrible happens, I believe the first (or last) detected drive with a label in fstab will be mounted. The other one will still be available by UUID and /dev device. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:28:05 -0500, Paul Hartman wrote: They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. You can set the UUIDs yourself too, but I think they have to stick to the standard format. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. AFAIK that benefit of labels can also be a danger. If you have multiple systems and use the same label naming scheme on all of them (for example you call your partitions root home swap etc.) and someday you plug the HDD from one system into the other, it could cause confusion by potentially choosing the wrong one. But someone can correct me if I'm wrong. :) If you have multiple systems, the sensible approach it to give each filesystem a unique label, such as hostname-mountpoint, which also has the benefit of making it clear which box a drive came from when you get them mixed up. -- Neil Bothwick This is as bad as it can get-but don't bet on it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. I assume that name clashes can be avoided by using hostname-label. My question is... are there any circumstances where you can use UUIDs but not labels, or visa versa? If so, I'd prefer to go with the more robust option from day 1, rather than switch later. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. I assume that name clashes can be avoided by using hostname-label. My question is... are there any circumstances where you can use UUIDs but not labels, or visa versa? If so, I'd prefer to go with the more robust option from day 1, rather than switch later. You can use whatever you want whenever you want. They are orthogonal. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Walter Dnes wrote: On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop environment, they look nice in file managers. I assume that name clashes can be avoided by using hostname-label. My question is... are there any circumstances where you can use UUIDs but not labels, or visa versa? If so, I'd prefer to go with the more robust option from day 1, rather than switch later. From what I know, they both seem to travel well. If you remove a drive and take it to another system, the UUID and LABELS will go with it. LABELS can be shorter and easier on the human to read tho. I see that as a positive that UUID doesn't have. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Windows gives partitions shorter UUID's too, so that's a non-standard thing on your /etc/fstab. I opted for LABELs. By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. --Spidey
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Spidey spide...@gmail.com wrote: Windows gives partitions shorter UUID's too, so that's a non-standard thing on your /etc/fstab. I opted for LABELs. By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. Yeah, labels are a feature of mount, an initramfs (really, totally different from an initrd) has nothing to do with it. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them? I believe grub uses its own partition scheme (hd(0,0)), so fstab should not matter to it unless you use the root= option. But even with the root= option, grub can understand labels, and so grub2 (I'm using it with labels right now). LILO I don't know, I haven't used it in years. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them? I think you need to use grub2 for that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them? I think you need to use grub2 for that. You are right: for grub-legacy you need to use the old hd(x,y) thingy. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
You are right: for grub-legacy you need to use the old hd(x,y) thingy. Which i assume suffers from the same reassignment risk as the kernel's /dev/sdX naming that prompted this discussion. Looks I'll be moving to grub2.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: You are right: for grub-legacy you need to use the old hd(x,y) thingy. Which i assume suffers from the same reassignment risk as the kernel's /dev/sdX naming that prompted this discussion. Looks I'll be moving to grub2. That's a good idea anyway, given that grub is in life support by its maintainers. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
Am 04.10.2011 07:09, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them? I believe grub uses its own partition scheme (hd(0,0)), so fstab should not matter to it unless you use the root= option. But even with the root= option, grub can understand labels, and so grub2 (I'm using it with labels right now). LILO I don't know, I haven't used it in years. Regards. In my experience, grub's partition numbering is more stable than /dev. hd(0,*) tends to be the device on which grub is installed, even if device numbering in /dev changes. The more tricky stuff is defining the root=/dev/* kernel parameter. Fortunately, starting with 2.6.37, you can use a UUID here as well (but not label, that support was removed a few years ago): http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Am 04.10.2011 07:09, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, is it possible to use LABELs without and initrd? I'll start using an initrd before too long, I'll also mess with decorations, but for now, I'd like to keep my setup simple, no initrd. AND what bootloaders can use LABEL/UUID? Can grub's device.map use them? I believe grub uses its own partition scheme (hd(0,0)), so fstab should not matter to it unless you use the root= option. But even with the root= option, grub can understand labels, and so grub2 (I'm using it with labels right now). LILO I don't know, I haven't used it in years. Regards. In my experience, grub's partition numbering is more stable than /dev. hd(0,*) tends to be the device on which grub is installed, even if device numbering in /dev changes. The more tricky stuff is defining the root=/dev/* kernel parameter. Fortunately, starting with 2.6.37, you can use a UUID here as well (but not label, that support was removed a few years ago): http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5af921ec02333e943efb59aca4f56b78fc0e100 Mmmh. This overrides the root option from grub? Then it will also work in LILO. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
