| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Am 14.05.2014 10:42, schrieb Neil Bothwick: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 14 May 2014 10:01:42 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 6 |
>> But then the "container" of the btrfs would be corrupted, right? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No, because each element of the RAID is encrypted separately, so |
| 9 |
> btrfs can still use the good one to repair the bad one. If you were |
| 10 |
> to create an mdadm array, put dm-crypt on that and then btrfs on |
| 11 |
> top, which is more efficient because it encrypts each byte only |
| 12 |
> once, then you would lose the check and repair facilities. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What RAID? I think of a laptop with only one SSD inside. You mean the |
| 15 |
duplicated metadata in this case? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 18 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 19 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTcy9LAAoJEClcuD1V0PzmacMP/0kSvPhK5iShKxwAQnJfuSRP |
| 22 |
S0Q+d1etq/H6TJoBCwRDuu1OLEU2iiyeOcMgPn7ZsFnFgP3joiNtV2OOVioFFbSY |
| 23 |
7DvHujkSuTGrD3KxWGV59dZp1TCEX1UYL/L0UOkSujzDvspB1io7mbbEqlAhARpw |
| 24 |
79cHZjMSK4juf6Go21Dos1Fnj5peSLPBASVZl7qmRjORZukZMOh70wVEcVcEVwoW |
| 25 |
VGDnme21GuaiMZn862ha1WMfIJVBArPsqial/hSsilS8l9np1IgtgZDUe1uH4VsA |
| 26 |
botwaEyr3wrPARBOipqLpCPmK/+R8zihFc/pIbO9c2PsSOKiRQPzVq4VAK4KWyc4 |
| 27 |
IutpBCO6tOpL6QBtjYmqJk+JF02/Bz1EtmaIfvyUSaQ4ZGP0nEb4qB9K+oWMriBd |
| 28 |
FDsOz2QT9+X+h/S7wfw3OPqCBHuqSlqqkyy/TFwCiO9e0GFLz8HONVV1rP+GeK5c |
| 29 |
7Y3UBPbRDIbb4lsaySfDKgMtMDQ59ei6mwQL6A9CyA5MrL1R0wydYvOrkHyTRSHK |
| 30 |
xy+vuqxL384zHjORWX6uLj1Tu5hbJhG1JgNFrcHMdKwIV6kRJzYMUHMVYmLN+ENX |
| 31 |
5Z2IWJRyVlr5yNGE/NoCDJQue2EO9H/gzxpSnwXeFjMpRSuvGN/2Ay2Ml5zSXB6x |
| 32 |
qrOj0Zp81jcky7zjXp01 |
| 33 |
=JG2q |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives