> Gotta comment on this... Is there anyone reading this who believes that
> the c?t?d?s? SCSI device naming scheme originated with Sun and HP? The
> "one true UNIX(tm)" as inherited/purchased/acquired/stolen/borrowed from
> AT&T has had this naming scheme since at least SVr?. If those who are
> promulgating a gratuitously different naming scheme are doing so out of
> a desire to spite Solaris, they are misguided or at least ignorant of
> UN*X history. Bottom line: IMNSHO the current argument over the naming
> of devices is rehashing old territory except for the valid point that
> existing naming schemes didn't anticipate the notions of multi-channel
> controllers and RAID devices. Anything we come up with now will more than
> likely be found insufficient 15+ years later. (How old *is* System V
> anyway?) I look forward to the changes that will make that "problem" a
> reality :-).
It has been around since svr3, at least.
As far as having multiple SCSI channels per controller, you can do
that by having more than 7 or 8 targets per controller:
c0t0d0s0
...
c0t7d0s0
c0t8d0s0
...
c0tfd0s0
or maybe split the channel number out as a separate digit after "t"...
Joe Buehler