Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 May 1997 07:14:59 +0200 | From | Andras Kadinger <> | Subject | Re: SCSI disk devices, even crazier naming scheme |
| |
[Sorry for not replying in the original thread.]
david parsons wrote:
> It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for > a naming scheme that tells you what the device is, it's > hard to get better than a [C]ontroller[D]evice[L]un[P]artition > system, unless you want to be verbose: > > /dev/scsi/controller0/disk1/lun0/partition2
To exercise this to an extreme level, Eric (or some brave soul) could enhance scsidev to provide rather longish and practically untypable names providing all (by some definition of all) available identification data of a scsi entity, and then everybody could make up simple scripts (which we have to do anyway in order to customize our systems) to use the magic of filename expansion to enumerate, retrieve and sort all the devices to their heart's content.
A (rather silly) example follows. You could have an entry in /proc/actualscsidevices (or a corresponding /dev variant) with the name aic7xxx.io6500.channel0.id0.lun0.parition0.type-directaccess.serno-XXXXXXXXXX.vendor-IOMEGA.model-ZIP 100 [sorry for that] (substitute previously defined, reasonable, ordered [by meaning or alphabetically] field sets and delimiters).
After landing in this situation and unless I am very silly and do not know enough about filename expansion, and the popularity thereof [in which case flames are welcome], from the very simplest
ln -s *model-ZIP 100* /dev/zip
or, in the case of partitions,
for count in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do ln -s *model-ZIP 100*partition-$count* /dev/zip$count; done
through the more complicated
ln -s `ls *fstype-ext2*serialno-xxxxx* | head -n 2 | tail -n 1` \ /dev/The_Second_ext2_Partition_On_The_Device_With_Serno_xxxxx
many things are possible.
It seems to be simple (well, sort of, in cinception at least), expandable (if you add a new field, you know, where to put it, since they are alphabetically ordered; and that's all you need in the case of filename expansion), and rather comprehensive [well, at least in my opinion]. It is well-parsable and not the worst in the are of human-readability.
I read somewhere that one big advantage of unices is the extensive recycling of ideas and concepts.
[Side note: I just realize that this is a completely userspace problem. After all we are just naming our special nodes in rather perverse ways. :-) Where should I [we?] go with this?]
Andras Kadinger bandit@freeside.elte.hu
PS: this could be expanded to include *kind-* fields with values of storage, communication, display, etc. PS2: but is there really a need for that? PS3: I wonder, what could be in the Registry of some... ahh, never mind. :-)
| |