> Maybe I'm not understanding your problem completely. I thought one of > the > complaints you had was that if you changed some small thing in the > TrueCrypt container, you would then have to backup the whole file > again.
A bunch of smaller files suffers the same problem on a smaller scale. You're still backing up all the unchanged files in the volume, as well as all the unused space. > You could script the mounting and create a larger filesystem out of the > various volumes, but yes, that's more work. If you script the mounting ... then you truly have no security. Unless your script is just "mount this, prompt for password ... mount that, prompt for password ..." and still requires you to type a password for every volume mounted. > I'm sure there are some creative ways to deal with not having the > sparse > file functionality you want, but none of them sound ideal for your > needs. Honestly I'm surprised truecrypt doesn't support sparseness in linux. Their docs say something to the effect of "you can only have sparse files in ntfs, so it's not available elsewhere..." and that is of course, incorrect. To top that off ... I'm pretty sure truecrypt does support sparseness in macs. So ... go figure. > I'm curious if you've had any responses as to alternatives to TrueCrypt > that do more of what you want. I do have one response that sounds promising, but I haven't tried yet, so I haven't forwarded it here yet. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
