| 1 |
Certainly a good point - you don't want to spoil a SSD-RAID-set's |
| 2 |
performance by encrypting /usr but there is surely a strong need to |
| 3 |
encrypt /etc and thus /, which has a rather neglectable impact on |
| 4 |
performance of a system. |
| 5 |
I'd even say that in a lot of environments splitting / and /usr is more |
| 6 |
common and useful than putting them on the same FS. |
| 7 |
Just accepting the need to have / and /usr on the same FS because packages |
| 8 |
are severly broken and badly designed should not really an argument to |
| 9 |
consider. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Kind Regards |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
-Sven |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
P.S.: In this respect I second Ciaran's POV and what he said. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
On Sat, July 30, 2011 16:28, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 18 |
> Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How |
| 21 |
>> many users that might be? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it |
| 24 |
> contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the |
| 25 |
> time, so there is a reduced chance of accidental corruption. |
| 26 |
> I don't know the number of users who might want this, and I imagine it |
| 27 |
> is difficult to count them. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Best regards, |
| 31 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives