OK, so I've setup a RAID5 at home because I'm getting tired of failed disk drives and data losses.
Some stats from bonnie++ if anybody cares:
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP bonsai 2G 26727 72 39426 19 16690 7 28725 65 34164 7 215.3 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ bonsai,2G,26727,72,39426,19,16690,7,28725,65,34164,7,215.3,0,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
(Now, if I only knew what all those figures mean ;-)
No, neither the software RAID5, nor the dm-crypt layer nor LVM cause any measurable performance degradation whatsoever (from my subjective feeling). I don't care enough to measure anything. The CPU is idling all the time.
Power consumption is rather high (partly due to the mainboard and CPU, but also because of the disks + fans) and the system is pretty loud, which both sucks on the long run. I plan an ultra-silent, ultra-low-power RAID5 with 2.5" disks attached via USB to a (silent, low-power) NSLU2 for later.
As I have bought a new 300 GB external USB disk drive on Friday, I have tried something new this time: disk encryption using dm-crypt / LUKS. It has been suggested to me multiple times that dm-crypt is superior to loop-aes, however I didn't get a real reason. Yes, it doesn't require any kernel patches and is easier to setup. But has any serious cryptographer looked at it sharply, yet? Did it withhold his eye contact?
Anyways, here's how I encrypted my 300 GB drive. I largely followed the guide at the EncryptedDeviceUsingLUKS wiki page...
badblocks -c 10240 -s -w -t random -v /dev/sdb
/dev/sdbwith whatever is correct on your system. If you're really paranoid, and are willing to wait one or two days, do this:
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdb
apt-get install cryptsetup
cryptsetup --verbose --verify-passphrase luksFormat /dev/sdb1
cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sdb1 samsung300gb
mkfs.ext3 -j -m 1 -O dir_index,filetype,sparse_super /dev/mapper/samsung300gb
mount /dev/mapper/samsung300gb /mnt/samsung300gb
/mnt/samsung300gbwill be encrypted transparently.
cryptsetup luksClose /dev/mapper/samsung300gb
After unmounting, nobody will be able to see your data without knowing the correct passphrase. Drive is stolen? No problem. Drive is broken, and you want to send it in for repair without the guys there poking in your data? No problem. You leave the USB drive at home and some jerk breaks into your house, steals your drive, rapes your wife, and kills your kids? No problem. Well, sort of, but you get the idea ;-)
There's more things you can do, thanks to LUKS: have multiple passphrases which unlock your data, change/add/remove passphrases as you see fit, etc.
Update 2006-04-17: You have to use cryptsetup from unstable if you want LUKS support. cryptsetup in testing does not support this (thanks Ariel).