On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:12:28 -0600, Archaic wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 05:14:49PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote: >> >> Anyway. If anyone of you could look it over and comment on it I would >> appreciate it. > > Disc should be disk and a spell checking on the document would be a good > thing. Also, encrypting the OS instead of just the data will lead to a > heavy performance penalty and likely little value (since /bin/cat isn't > exactly a sensitive piece of data) so you should probably mention that so > people can base their decision on more well-rounded information.
I recently did this, and the only performance hit I saw was while making the filesystem and copying big files. I was using a p4 M 2GHz machine in a Thinkpad R40. The user should be aware that have any part of the disk unencrypted gives chance to having something within the encrypted disk leaked to the outside, such as a key, offset, important file, ... you get the idea. Indeed, it is a great point to issue on the performance hit. William (Ratrophy) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
