Talk about syncronicity... I had just last week asked
about the pro's and con's on this on the crypto list and
have heard nothing at all back. So I'll drop the body
of that message in here:
-- I've got a crypto loopback running directly on a /dev/md0 partition and then the file system on top of that. I'm interested in what the feelings of others are on the trade offs of doing it this way.Is there something to be gained by adding a file system layer between the /dev/md0 and the loopback file as far as error recovery is concerned?
Do I actually gain performance (as I am guessing currently that I do) by eliminating one layer?
It's just a plaything right now, but I'd be interested in some feedback on the wisdom of it before I actually use this on something important. So just to reiterated:
fs fs c. loopback c. loopback vs fs raid1 raid1 disk disk disk disk
where fs = ext2 until this evening when I replace it with reiserfs. --
And update by saying I've got reiserfs working on top of it with no problems. But I'm still just that wee bit nervous about the approach even though it works.
What happens if I get one bad disk sector in a partition? What is the difference in data loss between encrypting on the bare partition versus having say, a reiserfs under you?
(Obviously RAID doesn't save you. It will just merrily reproduce the bad sector on the mirror disk)
-- ------------------------------------------------------ Use Linux: A computer Dale Amon, CEO/MD is a terrible thing Village Networking Ltd to waste. Belfast, Northern Ireland ------------------------------------------------------ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:46 EST