From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EwMYB-0002zS-AP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:40:47 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0AGZsjb010704; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:35:54 GMT Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.201]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0AGRZaI018303 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:27:43 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i28so2938980wra for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:27:29 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Q1WCPh3UPgOjs9OUw0YUSFJEthH5LR3P2SBsgmjqWep15y18R29iUdlXHAv1IU4ozYrmZRXz/RtwEsdCerjAxDcZCfC8MX9rtGcylxO2Dk0wI938hS5YtfnW9BtxmLZOCUeXaO75fsZ8/VYTGs4eypdVwUHVNC9d8CUuv9fjTJA= Received: by 10.54.113.6 with SMTP id l6mr9756650wrc; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:20:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.69.9 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:20:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7573e9640601100820l159d9a8bxcb9bf193ba973f3a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:20:26 -0700 From: Richard Fish Sender: richard.j.fish@gmail.com To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LUKS In-Reply-To: <200601100731.08605.bss03@volumehost.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <7babdf270601090857w75cd06d6o88a0fee6e8e30c49@mail.gmail.com> <7573e9640601090926s11cebbcendd4dd009bac4403f@mail.gmail.com> <7babdf270601100513j3ebca1eam743c30af3cbfbaa3@mail.gmail.com> <200601100731.08605.bss03@volumehost.com> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id k0AGRZaI018303 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k0AGZskH010704 X-Archives-Salt: 7915be00-d15e-450e-999b-a52891cf970c X-Archives-Hash: 02d2e378473f97af7580bec06235ad3c On 1/10/06, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Tuesday 10 January 2006 07:13, Cl=E1udio Henrique > wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] LUKS': > > What about the performance, is it too different from plain partition > > usage? > > I never noticed the difference when I was using aes-loop on a 2GHz lapt= op. > That said, it will depend on the algorithm you choose and the CPU you h= ave > available. Also, I /think/ aes-loop was supposed to be faster than > dm-crypt, but I believe the kernel's implementation of aes (and maybe > other ciphers) has gotten faster since the last benchmarks I saw. I tested this recently on my new AMD64 X2 system. The dm-crypt and loop-aes are very very close in performance. I can't really say which is faster, because for some configurations, dm-crypt was faster, while for others, loop-AES was faster. By configurations I mean using 2 disks, software raid, LVM, and dm-crypt/loop-aes, and playing with the order of the "layers" (do I make a raid of 2 encrypted disks, or encrypt a raid array of 2 disks, or ...), the block sizes, etc. And in some cases, loop-aes would be faster at writing, but dm-crypt would be faster at reading, or vice-versa. The one thing I think loop-aes does better is that it creates a separate thread for each encrypted device, so it can take advantage of SMP systems. Still, I ended up using dm-crypt+luks on that system. For performance, on the AMD64 box, the two disks could deliver a combined read throughput of around 130MB/sec. The highest throughput I got with dm-crypt or loop-aes was 115-118MB/sec read, 95MB/sec write. On my 2.13Ghz laptop, using loop-AES, the disk can only deliver a maximum of 50MB/sec, and loop-aes tops out at about 45MB/sec at 42% CPU utilization. The only time it becomes a real impact is when I am doing a backup, when I have decrypt the data from one disk, archive it, compress it, and then encrypt the archive when it is written to another disk. I do _not_ notice an impact when compiling, becase the amount of disk activity for a typical compile is insignificant compared to the CPU usage of the compiler. -Richard --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list