Just relating a recent experience I had that caused me to take a hard look at the change to using LABEL syntax in /etc/fstab that occured some time ago.
I happended to be booting up a spare disk as 2nd master having unhooked the normal 2nd master. As it happened that spare disc had once been in use and had a linux file system on it resembling those in my normal installation. However some of the named partitions were on different devices. Example: I use a partiton called /anex on several machines, its not always on the same device on each machine though. In this case /anex was on /dev/hda11 in the normal install. However the spare disk I had temporarily hooked to 2nd master, had /anex on /hdc9. When I booted up, the wrong /anex got mounted causing lots of confusion for a while. I wondered if the LABEL syntax was what allowed that to happen, so edited /etc/fstab to use the actual device names as in the past. On reboot the correct /anex got mounted. I thought I understood the proposed benefit of having LABEL syntax but now I see at least one situation where it could have caused serious damage or other mishaps. Is it really a bad thing to nail down the devices being mounted to specific OS devices? It may cause some small inconvience somewhere, but it seems that having nailed down devices has got to be the clearist way to go. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
