Am 10.02.2016 um 00:35 schrieb Arno Wagner:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 23:08:19 CET, Lars Winterfeld wrote:
On 08.02.2016 22:51, Milan Broz wrote:
[Just note to already crazy discussion here - there will be NO LUKS header
at the end of device. Been there with another storage project and
just no - it is not worth problems it causes.]
Out of curiosity: what were those problems?
Same here. Not asking for a justification (if you feel
it is a mess or other problem, that is quite enough for
me), just want to understand the issue.
For proper layering, it should of course allways be
[header, payload]
with the payload having potentially the same format
if there are more layers below. That is the tradidional
way to do it. This even has a name, but I do not remember
it at the moment.
Question is, who defines 'proper' I wonder, what the traditional way of
doing this would be, if you'ask right-to-left readers ;-).
BTW: RAID signatures have mostly been at the end for ages (not just for
mdadm), I guess because for mirroring you can use each disk easily
outside of the mirror and calculation of the layout is simplified for
RAID 5/6 with a zero offset.
Another possible reason why disklabels always resided at the beginning
of the disk is: It's easier to access the first sectors of a disk in
16-Bit asm.
Was the problem confusion/complexity because this
layering-sheme was violated?
Regards,
Arno
Unfortunately I have no idea what name you are looking for.
Regards
-Sven
_______________________________________________
dm-crypt mailing list
dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx
http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
