From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.humilis.net ([82.95.169.224]:33767 "EHLO panda.humilis.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752927Ab2LMJRR (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:17:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:14 +0100 From: Sander To: merc1984@f-m.fm Cc: cwillu , Mitch Harder , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Encryption Message-ID: <20121213091714.GA14965@panda> Reply-To: sander@humilis.net References: <1354896969.6088.140661163160337.103F13F1@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1355332339.17999.140661165184497.5BC0F72B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1355337523.8384.140661165218221.778EBD55@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1355342784.940.140661165251717.298B576B@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1355342784.940.140661165251717.298B576B@webmail.messagingengine.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: merc1984@f-m.fm wrote (ao): > Oh pardon me, it's BTRFS RAID that's a no-go, which is just as critical > to me as I have a 4 disk 8TB array. > The FAQ goeth on to Say: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This pretty much forbids you to use btrfs' cool RAID features if you > need encryption. Forbids? That is just plain wrong. I have one btrfs filesystem on top of two encrypted devices. Works just fine. Sander