G
Guest
I was wondering if there was a good reason why HORM is limited to EWF-RAM.
The explanations I have seen so far are very shaky at best.
Background
Our product we are developing is going to have 1 GB of RAM in it. Due to
the nature of our product, we would like to use the majority of this RAM to
run our software. We are going to have 2 partitions, 1 HORM/EWF protected
partition for OS and Apps and 1 non-protected partition for user data.
What I have read so far leads me to believe that the reason that HORM must
be used with the RAM overlay is because it needs to keep all the system
information from getting out of sync, but mostly with the disk write cache
which could potentially corrupt your partitions.
This explanation sounds reasonable except you can run HORM/EWF protected and
unprotected partitions together. Shouldn't this cause the same issues that
using EWF-DISK will cause, out-of-sync partition states?
The reason why this is a concern is our product has the potential to write a
lot of data as the product is used, which could eat up RAM very quickly (We
are limited on the board we are using to 2 GB.) We would like to use a hard
drive partition as we can set the size to 5-7GB without much concern.
As the main reason for using HORM is that you want a to keep the device in
the same state every time you boot up the device, why should it matter what
is in the overlay? You should expect to loss it anyways.
Does anyone know if this current HORM limitation something that will be
addressed later on to make it more appealing as an option to protect devices
that need the RAM to run the software, not hold OS information?
Sorry for the rant, but it is hard to justify what I would consider short
comings of HORM to others when I can't justify them to myself.
The explanations I have seen so far are very shaky at best.
Background
Our product we are developing is going to have 1 GB of RAM in it. Due to
the nature of our product, we would like to use the majority of this RAM to
run our software. We are going to have 2 partitions, 1 HORM/EWF protected
partition for OS and Apps and 1 non-protected partition for user data.
What I have read so far leads me to believe that the reason that HORM must
be used with the RAM overlay is because it needs to keep all the system
information from getting out of sync, but mostly with the disk write cache
which could potentially corrupt your partitions.
This explanation sounds reasonable except you can run HORM/EWF protected and
unprotected partitions together. Shouldn't this cause the same issues that
using EWF-DISK will cause, out-of-sync partition states?
The reason why this is a concern is our product has the potential to write a
lot of data as the product is used, which could eat up RAM very quickly (We
are limited on the board we are using to 2 GB.) We would like to use a hard
drive partition as we can set the size to 5-7GB without much concern.
As the main reason for using HORM is that you want a to keep the device in
the same state every time you boot up the device, why should it matter what
is in the overlay? You should expect to loss it anyways.
Does anyone know if this current HORM limitation something that will be
addressed later on to make it more appealing as an option to protect devices
that need the RAM to run the software, not hold OS information?
Sorry for the rant, but it is hard to justify what I would consider short
comings of HORM to others when I can't justify them to myself.