Re: cryptsetup and data-alignment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sorry for answering my own mail,

I had a misconception there. I fired various values for dataalignment at
cryptsetup and it always chose a value of n*DA >= 4096 sectors. So
obviously 4096 sectors seems to be a lower bound I was not aware of.

Regards

-Sven


On Sat, July 18, 2009 09:59, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
> Hi Roscoe,
>
> let me quote from the man page (which of course could be wrong):
>
>        --align-payload=value
>               Align  payload  at  a  boundary  of value 512-byte sectors.
> This
>               option is relevant for luksFormat.  If your block  device
> lives
>               on  a  RAID, it is useful to align the filesystem at full
> stripe
>               boundaries so it can take advantage of the RAID's geometry.
> See
>               for instance the sunit and swidth options in the mkfs.xfs
> manual
>               page. By default, the payload is aligned at an  8  sector
> (4096
>               byte) boundary.
> ----
>
> If it is meant to align payload for raid devices it would be really fatal
> if it modifies the value and thus data is not aligned. As far as I
> understand it, luks will need at least 8 sectors (4KB) for the header
> data. Sine I specificly demanded 2048 sectors (1MB) the value for the
> offet should be no problem at all. Further investigation showed, that (my
> impression) cryptsetup uses the underlying blockdevice's readahead, which
> is certainly the wrong way to determine the payload offset value.
>
> Regards
>
> -Sven
>
>
> On Sat, July 18, 2009 03:12, Roscoe wrote:
>> On 7/18/09, Sven Eschenberg <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> when trying to luksFormat a device with: --align-payload=2048 and thus
>>> moving the payload to 1MB from the beginning of the underlying device,
>>> luksDump outputs the following:
>>> Payload offset: 4096 (?)
>>>
>>> This does not seem to make any sense.
>>
>> Perhaps the option means align at a 2048 boundary, thus 2048, or 4096,
>>  or 6144, etc...
>> It I imagine picked the first boundary that wouldn't result in
>> overwriting of the keyslots.
>>
>> -- Roscoe
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> dm-crypt mailing list - http://www.saout.de/misc/dm-crypt/
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dm-crypt-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dm-crypt-help@xxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> dm-crypt mailing list - http://www.saout.de/misc/dm-crypt/
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dm-crypt-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dm-crypt-help@xxxxxxxx
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
dm-crypt mailing list - http://www.saout.de/misc/dm-crypt/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dm-crypt-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dm-crypt-help@xxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [Device Mapper Devel]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux