On 5/1/2013 9:23, T o n g wrote: > Hi, > > It's well known that fail to plan means plan to fail. But when comes to > Disk Encryption, I did not see any reasonably planning on disk failure, > even though I've googled extensively. > > My understanding/impression is that with Full Disk Encryption, even a > single bad sector will have a much larger impact than itself and might > ruin the whole disk. That's a rather big risk right there, but I haven't > found article on how to cope with the problem. > > To make it more "interesting"/"practical", consider planning for normal > home user. They differ from big corporation in that, big corporation will > throw away disks once SMART *indicates* the disk is failing, while normal > home user will try still to use it until it fails massively, which hardly > happens. What I used to do is to mark the bad sectors in inodes as bad and > not using them any more. Works great, and I found a similar practice on > the net too -- http://www.linuxforum.com/threads/3265-bad-sectors-on-disk, > "I have some bad sectors on my hard drive. What I did was to make a > partition on the part which has the bad sectors. Then I just do not use > that particular partition. It's been two years now. The rest of the hard > drive is still working well, 12-16 hours every day, seven days a week." > > So, what would you plan for normal home users on disk failure for Disk > Encryption? How to cope with it? > > Thanks > >
Regular backups. duplicity, rsnapshot, even good old rsync - pick your poison. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post - http://goo.gl/YrmAb Don't CC me! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/518118dd.1030...@staticsafe.ca
