On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 21:31:05 CET, f-dm-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:41:43 +0100 > > From: Arno Wagner <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > The thing is that in a typical PC, power drops relatively > > slowly and disks work non-seeking for a lower voltage > > that the thresholds. Add to that that a single sector > > write takes less than 1ms (probably much less), and > > you get ample time to finish a write in progress. > > If the data has already made it all the way into the drive itself, > that may be valid, but it's very dangerous to make such assumptions > in general, and you can't necessarily know the timing of the power > failure vs when the data makes it to the disk, much less the platters. > > http://zork.net/~nick/mail/why-reiserfs-is-teh-sukc > > And new technologies may change this---not just SSDs, but modern > high-capacity drives that must rewrite many, many sectors to write > one. (Yes, I know this also argues that those headers should be > far away from each other. So be it. If such scattered headers > don't prevent resizing, I don't care. Except maybe for secure wipe.) My argument only relates to sectors getting corrupted by power failure, not other things. For that, the drive must become unable to write in mid-sector. Regards, Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718 FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718 ---- A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
