Thanks for your answer! >Last time I checked, ext2 didn't work with Truecrypt on Windows due to >a bug. If you use another solution (or the problem is fixed), I'd >recommend ext3 or ext4 without extents (so it can still be mounted as >ext2 by the Windows driver). >I would use NTFS. I dislike using non-journalling filesystems like FAT >or ext2 on such big disks. However, using the fuse implementation >under Linux causes a rather high CPU utilization. Together with the >encryption it could slow down less beefy systems.
Fat is really out of the question, I just listed it for completeness. Regarding NTFS, the performance overhead was exactly the reason I was thinking of rather sticking to a ext based filesystem. I've considered only writing to the disk from within a linux-environment and only mounting it readonly (as ext2) from within windows, but as you mentioned, using a non-journalling fileystem is an obvious risk. However, does this still apply when its in readonly-mode? >Well, saving all data on a single disk is always risky. Quite true, I wouldn't keep the data there forever without eventually backing the stuff up. Its just I want to 'store away' things that have no reason for just 'being' on my normal hdd in a secure manner & be able to transport them, if I have to. Tom
