On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
>> I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
>> SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
>
> Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
> exactly you are talking about, because as previously discussed
> there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition
> labels".
>
> If we take that literally that would be a GPT partition name, but
> you've used this same terminology before and meant a filesystem
> label.
>
>> My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm
>> out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones.
>
> Assuming you meant partition name the first time as well, nothing
> you do other than a disk wipe or re-name should alter those
> partition names.
>
> But your chosen partition names don't make a lot of sense to me.
> You've picked names based on the type/manufacturer of device so you
> may as well have just used the names from /dev/disk/by-id/… which
> already have that information and are already never going to change.
> I don't know why you want to complicate matters.
Will the by-id string fit in the space reserved for a label?That IF
there was a connection between the /dev/sdc that udev assigns and
anything in this list:
root@coyote:~# ls /dev/disk/by-id
ata-ATAPI_iHAS424_B_3524253_327133504865
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part2
wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part1
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part3
wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part2
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V
wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part3
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part2
wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part1
ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part3
wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part2
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T
ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080
wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part3
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part1
ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part2 md-name-coyote:0
wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part3
md-name-coyote:0-part1
wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part2
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E md-name-coyote:2
wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part3
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part1 md-name-_none_:1
wwn-0x5002538f413394b0
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part2
md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb
wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part3
md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb-part1
wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part2
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V
md-uuid-57a88605:27f5a773:5be347c1:7c5e7342
wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part3
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part1
md-uuid-bb6e03ce:19d290c8:5171004f:0127a392 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part2
usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0
wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part1
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part3
usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0-part1
wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part2
ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W
usb-USB_Mass_Storage_Device_816820130806-0:0
wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part3
root@coyote:~#
I dare you to find the disk that udev calls sdc in the above wall of text.
Why can't you understand that I want a unique label for all of this
stuff that is NOT a wall of HEX numbers no one can remember. Its not
mounted, so blkid does NOT see it.
> If instead you put filesystems on these partitions and labelled
> *those*, well, no, LVM goes under filesystems so those filesystems
> and their labels (and contents) are not long for this world.
>
>> I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once
>> when it first came out with a high disaster rating then.
>
> I hope you are putting a level of redundancy under that LVM or are
> using the redundancy features of LVM (which you need to go out of
> your way to do). Otherwise by default what you'll have is not
> redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of
> that device, possibly more.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
>
> ¹ and while you are there, maybe a post-it note with "I will show
> the exact command I used any time I write to debian-user" stuck to
> the top of the display of the screen you use to compose emails
> would help, because basically every thread you post here lacks
> that information.
>