| 1 |
Thanks for your answer! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Last time I checked, ext2 didn't work with Truecrypt on Windows due to |
| 4 |
>a bug. If you use another solution (or the problem is fixed), I'd |
| 5 |
>recommend ext3 or ext4 without extents (so it can still be mounted as |
| 6 |
>ext2 by the Windows driver). |
| 7 |
>I would use NTFS. I dislike using non-journalling filesystems like FAT |
| 8 |
>or ext2 on such big disks. However, using the fuse implementation |
| 9 |
>under Linux causes a rather high CPU utilization. Together with the |
| 10 |
>encryption it could slow down less beefy systems. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Fat is really out of the question, I just listed it for completeness. |
| 13 |
Regarding NTFS, the performance overhead was exactly the reason I was |
| 14 |
thinking of rather sticking to a ext based filesystem. |
| 15 |
I've considered only writing to the disk from within a |
| 16 |
linux-environment and only mounting it readonly (as ext2) from within |
| 17 |
windows, but as you mentioned, using a non-journalling fileystem is an |
| 18 |
obvious risk. However, does this still apply when its in readonly-mode? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>Well, saving all data on a single disk is always risky. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Quite true, I wouldn't keep the data there forever without eventually |
| 23 |
backing the stuff up. Its just I want to 'store away' things that have |
| 24 |
no reason for just 'being' on my normal hdd in a secure manner & be |
| 25 |
able to transport them, if I have to. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tom |
Archives