What do you mean? The nvme device label convention is far easier to screw up IMO. At least on my system the first drive would be labeled “nvme0n1”, second “nvme1n1”, etc and partitions get an additional suffix like “nvme0n1p1”.
I am far more likely to screw that up compared to “sda” vs “sdb”. Especially since I noticed that if I have both my internal and external SSDs hooked up at boot time their number gets assigned on a seemingly random basis.
Eh? Idk if I agree. My original comment was entirely a joke based on the fact that the literal argument of=/dev/sda has no affect on my system but to address your actual point. I personally don’t find nvme naming any more confusing than SCSI. /dev/nvme0n1 is only one char away from /dev/nvme1n1 just like sda vs sdb. Additionally if you understand how the kernel comes up with those names they make a lot of sense. The first number is the controller, the second is the namespace or drive attached to that controller, the 3rd if present is the partition on the given drive. It is entirely possible to have a controller with more than one namespace. That aside aside…I think there is a genuine benefit to be argued for having USB drives, which are SCSI and fall into sdX naming separate from system drives as I dd far more USB media than system media. Making it a lot harder to screw my system up when trying to poke a flash drive.
That might make it even more dangerous, because you get used to flash to usb sticks on “/dev/sda”. And when you then use a device with a built-in sata drive, you might forget checking in a hurry.
Happened to me a once or twice. I am now only using bmap tools for this.
I am immune to /dev/sda for I only have nvme
I love the nvme partition naming. Looking at you nvme1n1p3
What do you mean? The nvme device label convention is far easier to screw up IMO. At least on my system the first drive would be labeled “nvme0n1”, second “nvme1n1”, etc and partitions get an additional suffix like “nvme0n1p1”.
I am far more likely to screw that up compared to “sda” vs “sdb”. Especially since I noticed that if I have both my internal and external SSDs hooked up at boot time their number gets assigned on a seemingly random basis.
Eh? Idk if I agree. My original comment was entirely a joke based on the fact that the literal argument of=/dev/sda has no affect on my system but to address your actual point. I personally don’t find nvme naming any more confusing than SCSI. /dev/nvme0n1 is only one char away from /dev/nvme1n1 just like sda vs sdb. Additionally if you understand how the kernel comes up with those names they make a lot of sense. The first number is the controller, the second is the namespace or drive attached to that controller, the 3rd if present is the partition on the given drive. It is entirely possible to have a controller with more than one namespace. That aside aside…I think there is a genuine benefit to be argued for having USB drives, which are SCSI and fall into sdX naming separate from system drives as I dd far more USB media than system media. Making it a lot harder to screw my system up when trying to poke a flash drive.
That might make it even more dangerous, because you get used to flash to usb sticks on “/dev/sda”. And when you then use a device with a built-in sata drive, you might forget checking in a hurry.
Happened to me a once or twice. I am now only using bmap tools for this.