From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S7VoW-0004tN-Gn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:47:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72ED4E0A52; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B15CEE09E0 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:45:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2012 17:45:55 -0000 Received: from wl-l3-93.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (EHLO localhost) [141.24.17.93] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 13 Mar 2012 18:45:55 +0100 X-Authenticated: #4040096 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19VFx10DiRVv9i/MFZgQEGsm7MVlIBxM2ovKwpkBV RniMK5uRctEp5M Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:45:55 +0100 From: Frank Steinmetzger To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] hard drive encryption Message-ID: <20120313174555.GA15334@eisen.lan> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <4F5CC6F5.6020303@gmail.com> <4F5CEF0D.5050801@binarywings.net> <4F5F35C1.8070301@gmail.com> <4F5F71C3.6070206@binarywings.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J/dobhs11T7y2rNN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F5F71C3.6070206@binarywings.net> User-Agent: Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15, Gentoo 1.5.21-r1) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: 9221d486-7708-41d1-8ab2-249e39bb0075 X-Archives-Hash: ab002377933a72b5b179df1792e0c0ea --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:11:47PM +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: > > Since I am planning to encrypt only home/ under LVM control, what kind > > of overhead should I expect? >=20 > What do you mean with overhead? CPU utilization? In that case the > overhead is minimal, especially when you run a 64-bit kernel with the > optimized AES kernel module. Speaking of that... I always wondered what the exact difference was between AES and AES i586. I can gather myself that it's about optimisation for a specific architecture. But which one would be best for my i686 Core 2 Duo? --=20 Gru=DF | Greetings | Qapla' I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. A pessimist is an optimist who's given it some thought. --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9fh9IACgkQGafpl66MV0xiWwCgnsNrT+lfZXuBfoNXU3aKqGQi He4An3CGiXawhavLfsYTEJwbTNUuyZEA =1HDH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--