From nobody Wed Apr 12 16:13:46 2023 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4PxSSh2pwTz4522G for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:13:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PxSSf4W14z3jMf for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:13:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=netfence.it header.s=202304 header.b=aFvYAPMN; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it Received: from [10.1.2.18] (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 33CGDkaq042264 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:13:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfence.it; s=202304; t=1681316031; bh=9cqPsKPnh46I1Q0uCMahX4wKIRgt3dANa9NVxMQrgrI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=aFvYAPMN9NCNSm1yNgPC3QyNfYF9NuFD9rJbb3Lxeh6d7tS6naFetsz01fxhotUb2 TfksAzKBi6Df3/wgPd0/2MNnGaaiEPnobRO1QrXGKYZUSVGC/15B0UIuKEyHqDE8GC jiPE3AZMThHGy3AbHNuUVF5NXw3FD0ReQvNqCd9k= X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <105b447c-05f5-6b6b-8da3-be1044ac69cc@netfence.it> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:13:46 +0200 List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: filesystem labels? Content-Language: en-US To: questions@freebsd.org References: From: Andrea Venturoli In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152:c]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[netfence.it:s=202304]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[netfence.it:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4PxSSf4W14z3jMf X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 4/12/23 17:58, Dan Mahoney (Ports) wrote: > Hey all, Hello. Can't answer the rest, but... > Or should I just keep on using /dev/daX in fstab? There's nothing wrong with using /dev/daX. You can however use labals when they give you some advantage. E.g. I label backup disks, so I know when a "backup" disk is plugged in (vs a generic one) and possibly run the backup automatically. If the disk is UFS, I use UFS labels for that (newfs -L ...), as I often don't even have a partition table. If it's ZFS I use GPT labels. bye av.