On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:24 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > I'll step into this again: let's look at the context. > > 1. a drive's failed. No conflict. > 2. a server's failed, and you want something off one of its disks: > a) you put it in a hot swap bay, and aren't rebooting the server - > you are going to be manually mounting it, so no conflict > b) you need to replace the server in -10 sec: you throw the drive(s) > into a standby box, and either > i. it's got partitions labelled /boot and /; fine, you > *want* it to use those > ii. you want a drive from another disk on that failed > system: no problem - see 2.a. > c) you have a system without hot swap bays, and you install > the drive from the failed system, and then you do have to > power up; this is the only case I can think of, off the > top of my head where you have a collision. In this case, > you need linux rescue, and relabel. > > So, where's the big issue with std. labels? You power down, add some disks that you want to re-use. Maybe even add a controller. Just because a bay looks like you can hot-swap doesn't mean it is a good idea if you don't have to. You boot up. When the label scheme was first rolled out, the machine wouldn't boot if it found a duplicate. Now it will pick one. Possibly the wrong one. As you might when you do a rescue boot for the relabel since you won't know which controller is detected first. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com