I think most people would be happy with h0c0d0l0p0.. :)
Since it's simmlar to Solaris's scheme it would also be most easily
accepted..
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> Pavel Machek writes:
>
> > Well, I do not like to be devices called like c0b0t0d0s1.
> >
> > I think that scsi0.0.0.0.1 would be much more acceptable.
> > Really, those letters are for nothing, just one more thing
> > to remember. If you maintain logical order (and this is logical),
> > you do not need ugly letters in between.
>
> Good idea. Since *.1 names look like libraries and man pages,
> it would be best to avoid that. Also, this applies to non-SCSI.
>
> We also need a simple old-style name and a volume label,
> which could be symlinks to the exact physical name.
>
> This looks good:
>
> /dev/disk/1-1-1-0-2 # exact physical name
> /dev/sdb2 -> disk/1-1-1-0-2 # simple name
> /dev/volumes/users_a_to_m -> ../disk/1-1-1-0-2 # volume label
>
>