| 1 |
Tom schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Thanks for your answer! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Last time I checked, ext2 didn't work with Truecrypt on Windows due to |
| 5 |
>> a bug. If you use another solution (or the problem is fixed), I'd |
| 6 |
>> recommend ext3 or ext4 without extents (so it can still be mounted as |
| 7 |
>> ext2 by the Windows driver). |
| 8 |
>> I would use NTFS. I dislike using non-journalling filesystems like FAT |
| 9 |
>> or ext2 on such big disks. However, using the fuse implementation |
| 10 |
>> under Linux causes a rather high CPU utilization. Together with the |
| 11 |
>> encryption it could slow down less beefy systems. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Fat is really out of the question, I just listed it for completeness. |
| 14 |
> Regarding NTFS, the performance overhead was exactly the reason I was |
| 15 |
> thinking of rather sticking to a ext based filesystem. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I would simply test it. Most likely, USB will be the bottle neck, not |
| 18 |
CPU time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I've considered only writing to the disk from within a |
| 21 |
> linux-environment and only mounting it readonly (as ext2) from within |
| 22 |
> windows, but as you mentioned, using a non-journalling fileystem is an |
| 23 |
> obvious risk. However, does this still apply when its in readonly-mode? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No write-action, no need for a journal. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
By the way: On my external hard disk I have made two partitions: 20GB |
| 28 |
NTFS for exchanging data with Windows hosts and the rest (230GB) |
| 29 |
encrypted (LUKS) ext3. It works great, but only because I seldom need |
| 30 |
the NTFS-partition. |
Archives