>On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 09:33:15AM +0100, DAVID BALAZIC wrote:
>>
>> I don't say you shouldn't use volume labels , but that partition
>> labels are more suitable for those tasks.
>
>But only slightly so... device names are slightly safer than partition
>labels are slightly safer than volume labels.
device names are not safer then partition labels. One reason
is that they name changes , while partition labels never change,
except if the admin does it on purpose. Examples when a device name
for a partition changes are : deleting/adding partitions on the
same disk, adding/removing disks on the same bus, adding/removing
HD controllers in the system ...
>> >Do _you_ want to tell me that 99% of the time, e2fsck does something else
>> >than saying "filesystem clean"?
>>
>> When accessing a partition by volume label , the app must read all
>> avaliable partition and look for the correct label. This might
>> be undesirable.
>
>Three additional seeks per boot? (And probably no seek at all in the common
>case where only one partition is on the drive?).
Well I have 10 partitions at home on only one disk.
-- David Balazic , student E-mail : 1stein@writeme.com | living in sLOVEnija home page: http://surf.to/stein Computer: Amiga 1200 + Quantum LPS-340AT--- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/