On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 08:28:50AM +0200, Michel Verdier wrote: > On 2026-06-22, Paul Leiber wrote: > > >>> RAID is always before LUKS : partition > RAID array > LUKS > filesystem > >> "Is always" means for you "should always be" or "has to be"? > >> > >> As far as I understand OP, their case is the other way around (and I don't > >> see why it shouldn't be technically possible: a block device is a block > >> device is a block device, after all). > > > > Tomas' description of my setup is correct, LUKS before RAID. It has > > been working in the past, and it is working right now again. Is this > > type of setup recommended? I don't know. BTRFS doesn't show any issues > > with this setup. > > So Tomas found your problem. It is at best useless to have > partition > LUKS > RAID array > filesystem
I strongly disagree here. > I cannot see how it managed to work. It suppose the 2 LUKS are identical > which is a nonsense. Also a small change in data gives a bigger change in > a LUKS partition thus bigger to sync. I don't know enough about LUKS but > I suppose you loose LUKS atomicity during sync. Not the LUKS are identical. Their decrypted layers are, ideally. Of course this costs additional processing power (you have to de-/encrypt things twice), and I don't (yet) see an advantage to this scheme, but it is definitely feasible. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
