On 28 Jan 2003 at 9:59am, Eric Sproul wrote

> On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:36, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> 
> > Well, IMO, mount points look a lit nicer than device names.  They also 
> > stay consistent should the underlying hardware/config change.  Just my 
> > $0.02.
> 
> I've gotten several responses to that effect.  I disagree, respectfully
> of course.  ;)  I guess I'm just more hardware-oriented.  Mount points
> can change-- maybe moving from one spindle to another.  I'd rather track
> my backups from the disk perspective-- I know that /dev/md/dsk/d14 is
> *always* on a different spindle than /dev/md/dsk/d5, because the RAID
> devices are made up of separate drives on separate controllers.  Thus I
> know that no matter what is mounted where, those two devices may be
> dumped in parallel.  I do keep the mount point in the form of a comment
> at the end of the line, however.
> 
> I think it's a tribute to the flexibility of AMANDA that we can all
> configure our backups in the same way that we think about our data.  It
> makes us all the more efficient at what we do.  :)

Indeed.  My reasoning is that as users get confused rather easily 
(poor users), it's best (for them, and more importantly, for you) to keep 
their data "in the same place" regardless of the underlying hardware.  :)

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University