Typo.

[homepage.git] / blog / data / 2013-07-17-new-laptop.txt

diff --git a/blog/data/2013-07-17-new-laptop.txt b/blog/data/2013-07-17-new-laptop.txt
index 7d67fef0fcad81fbbe307b1e145bf38b5db025cc..92d3d66bfecb9110026a14d31abf73350c36d93b 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/data/2013-07-17-new-laptop.txt
+++ b/blog/data/2013-07-17-new-laptop.txt
@@ -36,7 +36,9 @@ file systems in SSD and non-SSD file systems.</p>
 set up Debian Wheezy with an SSD.  It is adjusted to my use case,
 where I set up the machine with one large encrypted partition (in
 addition to /boot), put LVM on top of this and set up partitions on
-top of this again.  At the moment these parameters are tuned:
+top of this again.  See the README file in the package source for the
+references I used to pick the settings.  At the moment these
+parameters are tuned:</p>
 
 <ul>
 
@@ -53,7 +55,7 @@ top of this again.  At the moment these parameters are tuned:
 <li>Tell swap to use TRIM commands by adding 'discard' to
     /etc/fstab.</li>
 
-<li>Change I/O scheduler from cfq to deadline.</li>
+<li>Change I/O scheduler from cfq to deadline using a udev rule.</li>
 
 <li>Run fstrim on every ext3 and ext4 file system every night (from
     cron.daily).</li>
@@ -63,6 +65,16 @@ top of this again.  At the moment these parameters are tuned:
 
 </ul>
 
+<p>During installation, I cancelled the part where the installer fill
+the disk with random data, as this would kill the SSD performance for
+little gain.  My goal with the encrypted file system is to ensure
+those stealing my laptop end up with a brick and not a working
+computer.  I have no hope in keeping the really resourceful people
+from getting the data on the disk (see
+<a href="http://xkcd.com/538/">XKCD #538</a> for an explanation why).
+Thus I concluded that adding the discard option to crypttab is the
+right thing to do.</p>
+
 <p>I considered using the noop I/O scheduler, as several recommended
 it for SSD, but others recommended deadline and a benchmark I found
 indicated that deadline might be better for interactive use.</p>
@@ -83,8 +95,9 @@ have not yet had time to investigate those parts.</p>
 there.</p>
 
 <p>As for the answer to the question in the title of this blog post,
-as far as I know, the only solution is to replace the disk.  It might
-be possible to flash it with Intel firmware instead of the Lenovo
-firmware.  But I have not tried and did not want to do so without
-approval from Lenovo as I wanted to keep the warranty on the disk
-until a solution was found and they wanted the broken disks back.</p>
+as far as I know, the only solution I know about is to replace the
+disk.  It might be possible to flash it with Intel firmware instead of
+the Lenovo firmware.  But I have not tried and did not want to do so
+without approval from Lenovo as I wanted to keep the warranty on the
+disk until a solution was found and they wanted the broken disks
+back.</p>