Re: Using label for Grub root (*not* os root)

[Roger Binns]

Uwe Dippel wrote:
> The logic for hda / sda dies on me too often.

My issue is that I frequently add and remove drives from my system.  For
even more fun, the Linux drivers like to access the drives in a
different order than the bios.

> On the other hand, I wasted days of my life with labels; 

I guess this is one of those "your mileage may vary" situations.  I've
never had any issues with labels.  I also go out of my way to ensure
there will never be duplicates.

My *only* problem is I can't tell Grub which label to use.

> I rather use the old-fashion count like
> on Solaris, which doesn't differentiate between hda and sda, but simply
> counts controllers and drives and partitions incrementally, as you all
> are aware of. This is no answer, since c2d1p3 is arcane. Though, at
> least, unambiguous.

The Solaris scheme is basically like how IDE used to be done under Linux
with predetermined names.  Adding a drive could not change the name of
existing drives.  The Linux scsi naming means that adding a drive could
change the name of an existing drive.

> ZFS could in future lead to a better way of dealing with it, I find -
> despite of its current shortcomings - the auto-discovery of pools quite
> promising.

That is just the same mechanism as labels.  Note however that you still
need a bootloader that can load the operating system kernel that has the
ZFS drivers.

> In the end, a DHCP-like system might evolve; scanning any plugged drive,
> reading by all means your labels, and offer to mount the partitions /
> drives. 

http://gujin.sourceforge.net/

> It is also high time, to remove grub from the installs and give it a
> place in an extended BIOS,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface


Roger