Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:05:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Schaefer <hschaefer@fto.de> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gbde data corruption? Message-ID: <20030429225636.C23260@daneel.foundation.hs> In-Reply-To: <3EAECC0A.388DDCFC@mindspring.com> References: <20030429155751.K20908@daneel.foundation.hs> <3EAECC0A.388DDCFC@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Terry, > > > > apparently updating g_bde_crypt.c from rev 1.12 to 1.13 has effects on the > > format of data or the layout of the encrypted filesystem. the stuff that > > was on that mount with the old kernel is gone now. > > > > i'll refill the volume and report any issues that still remain. > > While you are at it, consider "man tunefs", and read about the > "-m" option to see why "-m 0" is a terrible thing to do; in > particular, read the first and last paragraphs. i believe i'm aware of the issues with "tunefs -m 0". i only use it as a temporary means of cramming data onto disks. with 60GB drives it sometimes comes in handy to temporarily use those 8% (4.6GB in that case). of course i leave minfree at 8% on filesystems to which i write regularly. my comments on speed were unrelated to tunefs-related slowness, but i suppose it is reasonable to expect a "tunefs -m 0"'d filesystem to be reliable, albeit slow. that was what concerned me. but as it turned out, i just used a broken version of the gbde code. initial fiddling points that poul's hint of using "-i" when gdbe initing and setting the sector_size improves speed greatly for me. anyway, thanks for pointing it out - there are certainly enough other obvious things that i'm not aware of :) cheers, Heiko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030429225636.C23260>