Arno Wagner <arno@...> writes: > The IO error is worrying though, it should _not_ happen. > Have a look into the system error log to see if this is > some lower-level error. It may also be some problem > with your LVM setup. (I cannot help there, in my opinion > LVM is too complicated and causes more trouble than it > has benefits.) > > Arno I have no idea what the IO error signifies, as the system is still functioning normal (I left it on, in case). But I am convinced this error cannot have anything to do with the LVM setup, as it is happening on a lower layer. I have not had a bad experience with LVM ever in the last 7 years since I started deploying it, and I don't know what trouble you have had with it (or heard about), but I think for now I will keep using it. I am wondering though, if it would be a good idea to change the default luks header size, even if only a smaller header is required according to the parameters. If by default a header size is chosen that could accommodate a reencrypt to a larger size, all the shifting doesn't need to happen, and it will only cost you a few MiBs, which is a small price to pay when usually you're dealing with at least GiB at this level. Peter > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:59:28 CET, PePa wrote: > > Reporting back, I did: > > cryptsetup-reencrypt -c aes-xts-plain64 -s 512 -h sha512 > > --reduce-device-size 4MiB /dev/sda4 > > > > It stopped here: > > Progress: 99.4%, ETA 02:48, 710848 MiB written, speed 27.0 MiB/s > > IO error during reencryption. > > > > Curiously, I did: > > cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sda4 secret > > > > Output>: > > Device /dev/sda4 is not a valid LUKS device. > > > > Is there anything I can still try to salvage this situation?? > > > > Thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dm-crypt mailing list > > dm-crypt@... > > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt > _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
