From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642937F61 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:36:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D206BAC001 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id gVAkyzRVOEdWnihr (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so10885557wiu.1 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-tirith.valinor (227.Red-79-146-163.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.146.163.227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m1sm13964850wiw.7.2015.04.27.18.35.55 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-tirith.valinor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minas-tirith.valinor (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F46184097 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:35:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <553EE3FA.9050603@opensuse.org> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:35:54 +0200 From: "Carlos E. R." MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Proposal/RFC: new metadata-specific UUID for V5 supers References: <553EB3D1.10602@sandeen.net> <20150427233754.GT21261@dastard> <553ED9D8.4050106@sandeen.net> <20150428012003.GS15810@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20150428012003.GS15810@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: XFS mailing list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-04-28 03:20, Dave Chinner wrote: >> Well, it's just the loss of ability to change UUID, which is >> something People Used To Do(tm), and now can't. It does come up. >> Honestly if it had been done from day 0, it'd be a no-brainer I >> think. Doing it now, with an incompat flag, might not be a >> reasonable tradeoff. > > I think that labels are a far better way of dealing with this > problem. Get rid of the UUID mount checking (and hence the nouuid > mount option), and tell people to use by-label instead of by-uuid > to identify their filesystems when doing clones and snapshots. > Labels make it much easier for humans to identify the filesystem > than UUIDs... As a plain user, I can say that I have needed to mount both the filesystem and its backup image, but Linux refused on the basis of the id being the same. Of course, all identifiers are the same, label and uuid. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlU+4/oACgkQja8UbcUWM1wazAD9GYaGlF722BiADT5xt1UCvHOj f72zxyn7Ti4Xoxho6vAA/2Lik11x1rCy9vEdt6OYo8Z7yYvDncLHKfx+yvt9UxsU =VNrO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs