Re: devfs

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:05:16 +1100

Leonard N. Zubkoff writes:
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:33:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jauder Ho <jauderho@transmeta.com>
>
> how about this?
>
> /dev/sd/h0c0t0u0p2
>
> There. that should make everyone happy...
>
> first part after the /dev describes the type of device so
> you can have /dev/scd/.... , /dev/sgd
>
> and preserve all the current names
>
> I think either /dev/dsk/sd_... or /dev/sd/... are both reasonable choices.
>
> I am now wondering what the rationale is for using "p" rather than "s" for the
> partition number. I cannot think of any particularly compelling reason for
> either choice. "p" is somewhat more mnemonic, but I find "s" slightly more
> esthetic (since "p" would be the only character with a descender) and it is
> compatible with other systems. So how about:
>
> /dev/sd/h0c0t0u0s2
>
> versus
>
> /dev/dsk/sd_h0c0t0u0s2
>
> I think I personally would prefer the former.

I recall someone telling me that Solaris "stripes" are not actually
partitions. Their strips fit inside a "real" partition. Is that
correct?
I don't really find the "s" clear.

Also, how about:
/dev/dsk/sd/h0c0t0u0p2

Regards,

Richard....