On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:53:35PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Comparing encfs to cgd, the big issues are > > - stability of codebase to be able to get your bits back much later (?, > but cgd seems like it has been quite stable. But it's NetBSD only > AFAIK.) > > - exposing the structure of your filesystem such as the histogram of > file sizes, directory organization, and when various parts were > updated (cgd wins) > > - having ciphertext size scale with size of plaintext easily (encfs > wins)
One more point: I have to identify a virtual disk or partition to use cgd. When doing so I have to decide its size up front and reserve that much space, even if I may not need that today. And when that space fills, I am not sure whether there ways to expand the FS easily. Even if there are, encfs/cryfs are lot more convenient here as they piggyback on native FS in user space and do not really require setting aside space for them. Mayuresh.
