Mayuresh <mayur...@acm.org> writes: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:53:35PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Comparing encfs to cgd, the big issues are >> >> - stability of codebase to be able to get your bits back much later (?, >> but cgd seems like it has been quite stable. But it's NetBSD only >> AFAIK.) >> >> - exposing the structure of your filesystem such as the histogram of >> file sizes, directory organization, and when various parts were >> updated (cgd wins) >> >> - having ciphertext size scale with size of plaintext easily (encfs >> wins) > > One more point: I have to identify a virtual disk or partition to use cgd. > When doing so I have to decide its size up front and reserve that much > space, even if I may not need that today. And when that space fills, I am > not sure whether there ways to expand the FS easily. Even if there are, > encfs/cryfs are lot more convenient here as they piggyback on native FS in > user space and do not really require setting aside space for them. > > Mayuresh.
I put a cgd on top of a lvm and had no particular trouble resizing the cgd. I just used resize_ffs like I might have done on a Not-cgd fs and it worked just fine. -- Brad Spencer - b...@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS http://anduin.eldar.org - & - http://anduin.ipv6.eldar.org [IPv6 only]