From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RAvUz-00016V-Sc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:16:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 149B621C093; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 03:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gy0-f181.google.com (mail-gy0-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E7A21C03F for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 03:15:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so72562gyd.40 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:15:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YeOVQA2UOwuhPYGdsoBtSoTu/B/rYwf9+wrfi2iqQ4I=; b=fAnOIZAjiTpBWvQvo2i3fOjS7FAfvofNc8QwnnGiS/hQyNFGGH+q/BfGFh6NHpsQKV 3HxHtZ+kpSfFuqb8Ja+Hir95M+3KBUesVDZdM5dK0CsPoSuD+9XZieMnpy75GeEGt4zE XlkjIB+78ITK1GT/hwZZR8HF+v2AWTUqfcl4g= Received: by 10.236.131.37 with SMTP id l25mr3575592yhi.76.1317698152826; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-128-200.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.128.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x65sm18109709yhg.18.2011.10.03.20.15.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E8A7A66.7060601@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:15:50 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111002 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drives not detected in repeatable order. References: <20111004022532.GC3367@waltdnes.org> In-Reply-To: <20111004022532.GC3367@waltdnes.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 5d419d11b55bff58259fcb0299863147 Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote > >> They have the advantage over UUID's in that you can set them and >> therefore can be human readable. Also, if you use a desktop >> environment, they look nice in file managers. > I assume that name clashes can be avoided by using hostname-label. My > question is... are there any circumstances where you can use UUIDs but > not labels, or visa versa? If so, I'd prefer to go with the more robust > option from day 1, rather than switch later. > From what I know, they both seem to travel well. If you remove a drive and take it to another system, the UUID and LABELS will go with it. LABELS can be shorter and easier on the human to read tho. I see that as a positive that UUID doesn't have. Dale :-) :-)