Re: Planning for Disk Encryption
On 5/1/2013 9:23, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's well known that fail to plan means plan to fail. But when comes to
> Disk Encryption, I did not see any reasonably planning on disk failure,
> even though I've googled extensively.
>
> My understanding/impression is that with Full Disk Encryption, even a
> single bad sector will have a much larger impact than itself and might
> ruin the whole disk. That's a rather big risk right there, but I haven't
> found article on how to cope with the problem.
>
> To make it more "interesting"/"practical", consider planning for normal
> home user. They differ from big corporation in that, big corporation will
> throw away disks once SMART *indicates* the disk is failing, while normal
> home user will try still to use it until it fails massively, which hardly
> happens. What I used to do is to mark the bad sectors in inodes as bad and
> not using them any more. Works great, and I found a similar practice on
> the net too -- http://www.linuxforum.com/threads/3265-bad-sectors-on-disk,
> "I have some bad sectors on my hard drive. What I did was to make a
> partition on the part which has the bad sectors. Then I just do not use
> that particular partition. It's been two years now. The rest of the hard
> drive is still working well, 12-16 hours every day, seven days a week."
>
> So, what would you plan for normal home users on disk failure for Disk
> Encryption? How to cope with it?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Regular backups. duplicity, rsnapshot, even good old rsync - pick your
poison.
--
staticsafe
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Please don't top post - http://goo.gl/YrmAb
Don't CC me! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
Reply to: