Re: Full Disk Encryption
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:18:57 -0500
Brad Alexander <storm16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been using full-disk encryption on my laptop for several years over
> several laptops. My current one is a Dell Latitude E6500 with a 2.66GHz
> Core2Duo P9600 with 4GB of RAM, and the lag from encryption is not
> noticeable.
>
> The way I did it was from the installer. I created a separate (and
> unencrypted) /boot, a swap and a large partition for encryption. Within the
> encrypted partition, I created an LVM volume group and created my
> filesystems within.
>
> I note, at this point, that if you want added security, you create your
> /boot on a USB thumb drive. This way, the machine will not even boot
> without this drive.
>
> I would also add that reiserfs3 had issues with multicore. I noticed that
> every time I rebooted my workstation, it would replay the journal, whether
> or not it had unmounted the filesystems cleanly. I found an article stating
> that it was due to reiserfs not playing nicely with the multiple cores, so
> you may want to consider another filesystem. I ended up going with ext4
> until I get a chance to get familiar with btrfs or one of the other newer
> filesystems.
>
> --b
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM, J. Bakshi <bakshi12@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am always interested in Full disk encryption for my laptop ( i5 + 3 GB
> > ), but what makes me stop
> > is the thinking of performance lag. Recently I have seen an ububtu laptop
> > ( i5 + 4 GB ) with full
> > disk encryption and it is performing normal, haven't found any lag...
> >
> > So I am interested to give the FUD a try on my own laptop. How can I
> > proceed ? My laptop is debian wheezy
> > with lots of important data.. so backup is must.. but what next ? What
> > configuration will give me a better
> > performance , LVM based or simple partition based ? Presently excluding
> > swap I have 3 reiserfs partition for / ; /home
> > and /movie ... no LVM. Like to hear some feedback from you guys..
> >
> > Thanks
> >
many many thanks for sharing .....
Reply to: