| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:01:22 -0400 |
| 3 |
Venkat Manakkal <venkat@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Yes, encrypted filesystems will fsck just like regular fs. I've lost |
| 6 |
> power a couple of times on mine and recovered. If this is more than a |
| 7 |
> few times it would be a good idea to move the remaining data to a |
| 8 |
> freshly created encrypted container. Ext2 works the best, reiserfs |
| 9 |
> works as well (with loop-aes) - both have survived power failures, I |
| 10 |
> feel ext2 is safer. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Best regards, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
yep, using ext2 is actually a fairly good thing here. also disabling |
| 17 |
atimes are good for the effectiveness of an encrypted filesystem. (a |
| 18 |
journal inside a filesystem works, but its not recommended) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
When using reiserfs, make sure to disable tail writing as it causes a |
| 21 |
lot of re-encryption of parts of the FS. (space saving isn't always |
| 22 |
great) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
using ext2 has another thing going for it. It keeps the user careful. |
| 25 |
;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
//Spider |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
begin .signature |
| 32 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 33 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 34 |
end |
Archives