On 12.06.2017 15:03, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 12.06.2017 14:45, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:41:56PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>>> >>>> You would need to push large part image of an encrypted volume for every >>>> change to files. >>> >>> That doesn't make sense to me. Why would you need to push more blocks >>> than actually changed? >>> >> >> Cloud hosting would require partial updates of files. But I think we can >> agree that using cgd raw image is not the best tool for this task. > > I still don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting backing > the image with S3 or something? If so, I don't actually see why the write > amplification problem is any worse for block-based or file-based storage, > though it's bad for a small-write workload either way. > I'm thinking about reuploading block device image for each change. I noted in the past that people were trying to do the same with TrueCrypt, and they give up - it's good for one-time upload of something, but it's not usable in scenarios that the volume has to be altered even for few bits.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature