I would like to store data encrypted and reliable (no bit rot, mirror). Already did some testing but I am not sure at some points.
For all cases: I set up a windows storage space with 2 drives (mirror setup). And now ...
case 1 format drive with ReFS, activate bitlocker, create file-volume-truecrypt, format that with ReFS -> poor performance, not acceptable
case 2 format drive with ReFS, activate bitlocker, create file-volume-truecrypt, format that with NTFS -> poor performance, not acceptable
case 3 format drive with NTFS, activate bitlocker, create file-volume-truecrypt, format that with ReFS -> good performance, reliability? (*)
case 4 format drive with truecrypt (full disk encryption), format it with ReFS -> good performance, reliability?, no bitlocker possible (**)
(*) question: in this setup will the storage space detect and repair bit rots? Or to put it in other words: Does the "inner" ReFS has any advantage at all if the outer environment is NTFS?
(**) question: does the TC-layer prevent the storage-space+ReFS feature of repairing bitrots? This would be very interesting to get information on.
This may looks very paranoid but I would like to have bitlocker+truecrypt just in case. If (*) defeats bit rotting I just found my ideal solution since performance is good. If not I would rather use (**), again, if it would defeat bit rotting. Case 1+2 without bitlocker leads to same performance. It's just an performance issue if I have a single huge container in an ReFS environment.
Thanks for any help and external links.
