In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bernd Walter writes: >No matter what disk you take - writes never have been atomic. >The major difference I see is that you get a read error back in >the disk failure case, while such a crypto failure produces more or >less random data without any error. >Mounting unclean filesystems rw for bg_fsck can be considered >dangerous with such unexpected data corruption. >And how would you know that a restore from backup is required for >a damaged file?
100% true. The trouble is that it would cost a lot in performance and a doubling in metadata to protect yourself against this. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"