| 1 |
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 11:11 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> [10-04-02 10:52]: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:09:30 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > > So I have a lot of docs (specs of microcontrollers, howtos, programm |
| 6 |
> > > and source code docs...etc) on my disk. |
| 7 |
> > > This one part. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Those are fairly normal files. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > Then: I often transer videos from my DVB-T-receiver/recorder to my |
| 12 |
> > > harddisk to cut out the advertising and to transcode the videos to |
| 13 |
> > > somethings better than "ts" (transport streams), |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > These tend to be bigger, often in the GB range, so I'd use a separate |
| 16 |
> > filesystem for them with XFS, which handles large files better in my |
| 17 |
> > experience. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > > Then I want something encrypted, either as a partition or as a files |
| 20 |
> > > (carrying a encrypted fs), which I can copy to dvd and will be able |
| 21 |
> > > to mount this dvd and use it without to have to copy the whole dvd |
| 22 |
> > > first to harddisk before using it... |
| 23 |
> > > Currently I am using encfs...(outdated?). What can I do use instead? |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > ecryptfs does much the same job as encfs but is in the kernel. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > I'd say something like reiser3 for most areas and an XFS filesystem for |
| 28 |
> > the videos would be a good starting point. I would strongly recommend you |
| 29 |
> > use LVM and only set up volumes for what you need. That gives you extra |
| 30 |
> > space to play with and even experiment with different filesystems to see |
| 31 |
> > which work for you. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > -- |
| 35 |
> > Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Hi Neil, |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Thank you for your help! :) |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> A question to LVM: As much as I know, LVM combines several partition |
| 44 |
> to one big partition, and if one partition fails, at least other |
| 45 |
> others of that volume are damaged, too. |
| 46 |
> What is the advantage of using LVM and several small partitions |
| 47 |
> instead of one in the size of the sum of the others and not using |
| 48 |
> LVM? |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Best regards, |
| 51 |
> mcc |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
The advantage is flexibility - you absolutely love LVM when you discover |
| 54 |
you have made a file system too small! Shrinking/enlarging/adding more |
| 55 |
storage etc is a real bonus. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Downside as you mention is lose one disk and you may lose all - however |
| 58 |
I believe that sometimes the remaining data can be recovered. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Also keep in mind that while small partitions can be a pain and waste |
| 61 |
space, normal corruption is limited to one partition, and physical data |
| 62 |
protection is better (i.e., when one partition fills up, others are |
| 63 |
safe) |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
BillK |
Archives