2011/7/1 Todd Wasson t...@duke.edu:
Thanks to both C. P. and Pete for your responses. Comments inline:
Case 1.) is probably harmless, because geli would return a
corrupted sectors' content to zfs... which zfs will likely detect
because it wouldn't checksum correctly. So zfs will correct it
Thanks to both C. P. and Pete for your responses. Comments inline:
Case 1.) is probably harmless, because geli would return a
corrupted sectors' content to zfs... which zfs will likely detect
because it wouldn't checksum correctly. So zfs will correct it
out of redundant storage, and write
While zfs on geli is less complex (in the sense that geli on zfs
involves two layers of filesystems), I'm concerned as to whether
encrypting the device will somehow affect zfs' ability to detect
silent corruption, self-heal, or in any other way adversely affect
zfs' functionality. In my
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Todd Wasson t...@duke.edu wrote:
While zfs on geli is less complex (in the sense that geli on zfs involves
two layers of filesystems), I'm concerned as to whether encrypting the
device will somehow affect zfs' ability to detect silent corruption,
self-heal, or
I've been thinking about how to best combine encryption and zfs on freebsd, and though
I've seen some discussion about each individual option, I haven't found an explicit
compare/contrast. I'm thinking of either encryption the devices directly via geli and
then making a zfs pool of the
