| 1 |
Hi. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Grant <emailgrant <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > > Would the type of filesystem encryption you guys are talking about |
| 6 |
> > > be unsuitable for a high-traffic server because of performance |
| 7 |
> > > considerations? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Yes, and it isn't necessary. You lock your servers away so that nobody |
| 10 |
> > has physical access to them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'd rather say: "... so that only trusted people have ...". But besides |
| 13 |
this nitpick, I agree with you. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sounds like co-location right? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No. Sounds like "build your own data center" :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I just have a hosted dedicated |
| 21 |
> machine. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This means that you've got to trust the people hosting your |
| 24 |
environment. If you don't, then move away! You know, they |
| 25 |
could "easily" install a traffic sniffers and whatnot. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> The thing that's always kept me from co-locating is hardware |
| 28 |
> failure. That would be a "my problem" in a co-located environment |
| 29 |
> rather than a "their problem" right? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Depends on your contract, but generally speaking, you're right, yes. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Michael |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives