| 1 |
On Wed, 14 May 2014 10:01:42 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> Doesn't that screw up the whole idea of checksumming etc ? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Not to my mind. The bits are recorded and checksummed, that's what |
| 6 |
> > matters. If a bit on a platter is flipped, the decrypted bits will |
| 7 |
> > also change. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> But then the "container" of the btrfs would be corrupted, right? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
No, because each element of the RAID is encrypted separately, so btrfs |
| 12 |
can still use the good one to repair the bad one. If you were to create |
| 13 |
an mdadm array, put dm-crypt on that and then btrfs on top, which is more |
| 14 |
efficient because it encrypts each byte only once, then you would lose |
| 15 |
the check and repair facilities. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-Come, come, why they couldn't hit an elephant from this dist- |
Archives