[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Grub PARTUUID vs UUID
From: |
Chris Murphy |
Subject: |
Re: Grub PARTUUID vs UUID |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:11:28 -0700 |
On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Chris Murphy <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:37 PM, FireIcer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I am looking at the impact in general with changing the grub-mkconfig
>> scan not to pickup and update the grub.cfg with the UUID code but the
>> PARTUUID code instead.
>
> grub doesn't require volume UUID, this is something that the kernel wants
> because that's the only reliably present UUID of some kind since MBRs don't
> have UUIDs. So yes, it's probably marginally more reliable to use the GPT
> UniquePartitionGUID: a.) there are two copies, checksummed; b.) they're
> unlikely to change until repartitioning occurs, whereas file system UUID
> changes if the file system is recreated on an existing partition.
FWIW, the volume UUID is probably more reliable than partition UUID. Here's an
example. I just resized a file system, and after that, I have to change the
partition size also. But the tools don't seem to allow changing only the end
sector value, I have to delete the partition entry then create a new one. When
I create the new partition entry, I've created a new partition UUID. So if I
were depending on partition UUID to be stable, and used that instead of volume
ID, I'd likely have an unbootable system.
Chris Murphy
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Grub PARTUUID vs UUID,
Chris Murphy <=