Diskeeper 8.0 Pro

2

Comments

  • Q wrote:
    What about Reiser? I've seen and used it, but haven't really and idea as to how it works...


    -Q

    PS. What about your BSD filesystems?

    ReiserFS is decent. In terms of speed, it's quite possibly one of the best filesystems, but I don't know much about fragmentation (or what it does to avoid it, if at all). I would assume that it's got some algorithms built in to minimize fragmentation (just as any other sane filesystem does nowadays).

    FFS/UFS (FreeBSD's filesystem) I know do an excellent job of minimizing fragmentation, and trying to give you as much free space as possible (through the use of contignuous blocks of free space). However, a rather large downfall of the BSD filesystem is that performance and fragmentation go to hell when the partition becomes 95%+ full. Optimizations don't work any more at that point, and the filesystem just tries to squeeze your files in wherever it can. This is why all the BSDs now prevent you from using 5-7% of the filesystem, even if you are root. You can change the limit if you want, but it's not recommended.
  • If you turn on some kind of encrypting on ReiserFS, then you won't be able to unencrypt it without a password. you won't be able to delete a partition...
    The only choice is low level format...
  • Reiser can encrypt itself? I shouldn't be surprised but I never tried that...

    I find it hard to beleive that it would be impossible to departition it, unless it encrypts the partition table, which it may do (I don't know).

    -Q

    PS. Don't be too hard on Slash, he's just repeated what some other "dolt" told him.
  • i should try out all these file systems

    w00t? my server is 0% fragmented??? lmao
  • Encrypting a file system does not prevent you from deleting it. Encrypting the partition table would result in no partition table, as far as your computer is concerned, seeing as how it's the BIOS/MBR that read the partition table (I forget which), and they don't know jack about encryption.

    It's possible to encrypt nearly every popular filesystem out there, anyway. I know the BSDs can encrypt partitions so that not a single piece of cleartext ever touches the drive platters (GBDE, very elegant design). Linux probably has some form of encryption (though as usual I wouldn't trust Linux worth jack shit with my data, especially when it's encrypted). For Windows there's a program you can get that encrypts entire partitions with Blowfish. I think it's called DriveCrypt or something.
  • The bios reads the MBR and the MBR tells the bios if there is an active bootable partition.

    The NTFS has encryption for files that you select, but I guess you need a program to encrypt whole partitions.
  • No. When I encrypten Reiser partition and tried to delete it with Disk Administrator, I got an error. Same with partition magic.
  • Then it is a corrupted partition table. Nothing can stop it from deleting a partition Slash. you could try FDISK in dos.
  • It gives some kind of error. The only way to delete partition is to use DrakX and enter a password!
    Or, low level format...
  • .......... FDISK will remove any non-dos partition without a problem.
  • Well, try. And prove yourself it won't remove.
    But don't forget to use reiser encryption.
  • It doesnt matter if its encrypted, deleting partitions has nothing to do with that, Ive deleted my encrypted partitions before with no problems.
  • And I got some kind of error....
    Also, when creating such partitions you get a warning: DO NOT TRY TO DELETE THIS PARTITION WITH FDISK!!!
  • Whether or not a partition is encrypted makes no difference in the partition table. The partition table is just that ... a freaking table. It refers to what sector a partition starts in, where it ends, what type it is, whether it's active, etc.

    Deleting a partition = deleting its entry in the table. The computer doesn't give a crap about what's BETWEEN those two sector addresses.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    Deleting a partition = deleting its entry in the table. The computer doesn't give a crap about what's BETWEEN those two sector addresses.
    Nor do bootsector viruses.

    So encryption is pretty much just to stop people nearby from spying on you. So in actuality... it's just a way to slow down system speeds.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    Deleting a partition = deleting its entry in the table. The computer doesn't give a crap about what's BETWEEN those two sector addresses.
    Nor do bootsector viruses.

    So encryption is pretty much just to stop people nearby from spying on you. So in actuality... it's just a way to slow down system speeds.


    Exactly, which makes it quite pointless.
  • #1 all filesystems get fragmented. all its natural with partations, if it cant fit changes to the file right after where the orignal is it has no choice but to move it somewhere else on the platter. all fs are designed different so some have more or less fragmantetion.

    #2 Fdisk can remove anything cuz even tho the partation is encrypted, the data for that partation in the table is not, its plain text so therefore anything can delete it.

    #3 encrypting everything is pointless. Who needs your explorer.exe or your emacs executable encrypted? Loading encrypted files does take more tiem, just use a standalone encryption program (I like cryptext, google it) and encrypt the ind. file.
  • hell.... put the thing in a zip file, password protect it, change the extension, hide it somewhere if your that desperate to hide files from others.
  • You guys are thinking along very naive lines. :P

    It's much eaiser to use a transparent filesystem-encryption layer and encrypt the ENTIRE filesystem than to pick and choose individual files. Someone who is working on extremely classified information will want to encrypt their entire filesystem using a method that is impossible to break, even if the hard drive itself was stolen.

    ZIP password protection just doesn't cut it.
  • the best way to keep information safe is to burn it onto CD and hide that
  • BOD wrote:
    the best way to keep information safe is to burn it onto CD and hide that

    Yeah, and I'm sure that when Mr. FBI Men come to your house with a search warrant because you're a suspected terrorist, they WON'T find that CD.

    That's so extremely naive ...

    Burning anything onto a CD and then "hiding it" is insecure as hell.
  • im not planning to be raided by the FBI......
  • I'm talking in terms of security. Encrypting a file system is 100000x better than burning a CD and hiding it.
  • not if i hide it in my room lol
  • Oh geez. :P

    I don't want to see any pictures.
  • i dont want to take any pictures, cos i cant find my webcam... lol
  • Gah. Mac OS X has been doing all that stuff for years. Not that its good... Just MS is a bit... slooww... lol
  • rubenerd wrote:
    Gah. Mac OS X has been doing all that stuff for years. Not that its good... Just MS is a bit... slooww... lol

    What stuff? On-the-fly disk optimization? Didn't I say it's an NTFS thing? I did.

    NTFS has been around since '94-'95.
  • I think me means disk encryption. System 10.3 can encrypt usrs home directories, but I never got that to work right ::roll:

    And as to the merits of hiding a burned disc from the authorities, since I may do that someday, I'm not going to compromise myself in advance.

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    I think me means disk encryption. System 10.3 can encrypt usrs home directories, but I never got that to work right ::roll:

    And as to the merits of hiding a burned disc from the authorities, since I may do that someday, I'm not going to compromise myself in advance.

    -Q

    Ah. Well then, the comment still stands. LOL It's been available since '94-'95, which was when the first MS OS that made use of NTFS was released.
Sign In or Register to comment.