Certainly a good point - you don't want to spoil a SSD-RAID-set's performance by encrypting /usr but there is surely a strong need to encrypt /etc and thus /, which has a rather neglectable impact on performance of a system. I'd even say that in a lot of environments splitting / and /usr is more common and useful than putting them on the same FS. Just accepting the need to have / and /usr on the same FS because packages are severly broken and badly designed should not really an argument to consider.
Kind Regards -Sven P.S.: In this respect I second Ciaran's POV and what he said. On Sat, July 30, 2011 16:28, ChÃ-Thanh Christopher Nguyá» n wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> >> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How >> many users that might be? > > If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it > contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the > time, so there is a reduced chance of accidental corruption. > I don't know the number of users who might want this, and I imagine it > is difficult to count them. > > > Best regards, > ChÃ-Thanh Christopher Nguyá» n > >
