Groups > linux.debian.user > #204290

Re: Taming the "lsblk" command

From	Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
Date	2019-01-10 13:50 +0100
Message-ID	<xeHWx-7FV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <xemS6-3e7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <xeoKd-4p7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <xeroJ-64W-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <xetJU-7p2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <xewRr-NZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>So, looking at the OP, is the order of sdc a temporary state of
>affairs, produced by adding partitions to sdc while sde is plugged in
>and blocking the sequence? (I've never seen one letter split.)

>Or is it quite normal when you reach fifteen partitions? I can
>understand that the devices seem to be assigned in blocks of sixteen,
>but I slightly surprised that they would be assigned in a broken
>sequence when they all present at boot time.

Historically the device numbers were assigned statically:
   8 block	SCSI disk devices (0-15)
		  0 = /dev/sda		First SCSI disk whole disk
		 16 = /dev/sdb		Second SCSI disk whole disk
		 32 = /dev/sdc		Third SCSI disk whole disk
		    ...
		240 = /dev/sdp		Sixteenth SCSI disk whole disk

There was a 15 partition limit. Now you can get more, but they're 
assigned dynamically, outside of the historic scheme.

>And surely sr0, sitting there in the middle, has a completely
>different major number from sdX.

Because scsi cdroms are a completely different device type than scsi 
disks.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Taming the "lsblk" command Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-01-08 22:00 +0100
  Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-08 22:20 +0100
  Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-01-09 06:10 +0100
    Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-01-09 07:30 +0100
    Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-09 07:50 +0100
      Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Bob McGowan <ramjr0915@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 08:00 +0100
      Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-01-09 12:50 +0100
        Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-09 14:00 +0100
          Re: Taming the "lsblk" command David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 15:30 +0100
    Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-01-09 09:10 +0100
      Re: Taming the "lsblk" command rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 14:00 +0100
        Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-09 15:00 +0100
          Re: Taming the "lsblk" command David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 15:20 +0100
            Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-01-09 16:40 +0100
              Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-09 18:00 +0100
            Re: Taming the "lsblk" command mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 17:20 +0100
              Re: Taming the "lsblk" command David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 20:10 +0100
                Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-01-09 22:40 +0100
                Re: Taming the "lsblk" command David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-10 02:00 +0100
                Re: Taming the "lsblk" command Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 13:50 +0100

csiph-web