<smoser> i think i might have been missing some step to explicitly release /dev/sdb from the guest (maybe 'eject /dev/sdb' or something)
<kirkland> smoser: the stack trace on detach?
<kirkland> smoser: i've seen that, clearly wrong, but I haven't noticed any mal-effects
Subsequently, I did:
cc$ euca-attach-volume -i i-4AA8096D -d sdb vol-32F804B0
instance$ sudo mount /dev/sdb /mnt
instance$ # verifiy file is there
instance$ sudo umount /mnt
cc$ euca-detach-volume vol-32F804B0
instance$ grep sdb /proc/partitions || echo "IT IS STILL THERE"
# it wasn't still there.
So, this does indeed not seem to affect re-attaching the volume with the same device name.
For the record, IRC snippit:
<smoser> i think i might have been missing some step to explicitly release /dev/sdb from the guest (maybe 'eject /dev/sdb' or something)
<kirkland> smoser: the stack trace on detach?
<kirkland> smoser: i've seen that, clearly wrong, but I haven't noticed any mal-effects
Subsequently, I did:
cc$ euca-attach-volume -i i-4AA8096D -d sdb vol-32F804B0
instance$ sudo mount /dev/sdb /mnt
instance$ # verifiy file is there
instance$ sudo umount /mnt
cc$ euca-detach-volume vol-32F804B0
instance$ grep sdb /proc/partitions || echo "IT IS STILL THERE"
# it wasn't still there.
So, this does indeed not seem to affect re-attaching the volume with the same device name.