On 09/26/13 18:32, Bret Taylor wrote:
> Paul Heinlein <heinlein@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, SilverTip257 wrote:
>>
>>> Eh, I don't really think dban is necessary. Probably more than an
>>> fdisk and creating a file system is overkill.
>>
>> My policies are work are simple:
>>
>> 1. Re-use by same employee: stick with filesystem tools.
>> 2. Re-use within company: single-pass zeroing of disk.
>> 3. Retirement of asset: three-pass of random bits.
>>
>> I've never seen the need for a seven-pass randomization. If pressed,
>> I'd probably agree that a one-pass zeroing is good enough for just
>> about any situation. Asset retirement isn't a time-sensitive task,
>> however, so I always use a three-pass randomization before it heads
>> out the door.
>
> You all realize that dban only offers 3 passes, unless you pay for it,
> right? DBAN is easy, that's why I recommended it.
Um, no. It offers DoD 5220.22-M, which it *says* is seven passes, and I've
seen that it is. And we normally use a disk until a) it dies, or b) the
server it's in dies, and then reuse, or, more likely, sits around until we
consider it too small.... On top of which, I *do* need to guarantee that
it's clean, as I noted originally. I have *zero* intention of winding up in
a news story about someone buying an old surplussed server, and finding all
*sorts* of interesting data on the h/d in it.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
