Re: Ideas for v2.1

Dr. Werner Fink (werner@suse.de)
Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:05:43 +0200

> Date: 13 Jun 1996 12:28:20 +0200
> From: barnard@forge.franken.de (Henning Schmiedehausen)
>
> duprec@jsp.umontreal.ca (DUPRE Christophe) writes:
>
> >Not really a good idea : Let's say you have IDE and SCSI disks:
> >/dev/hda, /dev/hdb, /dev/sda and /dev/sdb
>
> >With your system, you'd have:
> >/dev/hda -> /dev/diska
> >/dev/hdb -> /dev/diskb
> >/dev/sda -> /dev/diskc
> >/dev/sdb -> /dev/diskd
>
> >Now one IDE disk is crashed and you remove it. Thus /dev/hdb no longer
> >exists, and you get this mapping:
> >/dev/hda -> /dev/diska
> >/dev/sda -> /dev/diskb
> >/dev/sdc -> /dev/diskc
>
> So, lets see, how it is currently:
>
> I have
>
> /dev/hda -> IDE
> /dev/sda -> SCSI ID0
> /dev/sdb -> SCSI ID3
> /dev/sdc -> SCSI ID4
> /dev/sdd -> SCSI ID5
>
> Now I remove SCSI ID3. 'drive does not spin underwater error'
>
> /dev/sda -> SCSI ID0
> /dev/sdb -> SCSI ID4
> /dev/sdc -> SCSI ID5
>
> :-(
>
> Not too different from the scheme you criticized above. But it is
> already in there. And IMHO it sucks. :-(
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
>

Why not mapping ID<num> on /dev/sd<alph>

/dev/sda <-> SCSI-Disk ID0
/dev/sdb <-> SCSI-Disk ID1
/dev/sdc <-> SCSI-Disk ID2

No SCSI-Disk with ID1 means no /dev/sdb ... and so on

Werner