Exactly. I keep wondering how I would parse 1-1-1-1-1 bleary-eyed,
3AM after about a dozen pots of coffee - that's when those little
letter "hints" about what it all means would come in *REAL* handy IMHO. :)
>
> I think most people would be happy with h0c0d0l0p0.. :)
>
> Since it's simmlar to Solaris's scheme it would also be most easily
> accepted..
Yes, the only reason I prefer c0b0t0d0s0 over the h0... is because
it is like Solaris's. My logic is: you have a group of people who
are familiar with the naming scheme c0... and a group who are familiar
with sdx only. So if we're going with a Solaris-like scheme let's
just DO the Solaris-like scheme. The sdx people are gonna have to
learn a new thing anyway, and Solaris users won't bust something in
their heads trying to swap the meaning of c0 and d0 around ;))
Mitch
>
> 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
> >
> >
>