linux-kernel - Re: dm-crypt and huge performance penalty

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:32:59 +0000
From:	Dmitry Nezhevenko <dion@...ex.net>
To:	Ryan Castellucci <ryan.castellucci@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dm-crypt and huge performance penalty

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:52:17PM -0700, Ryan Castellucci wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Dmitry Nezhevenko <dion@...ex.net> wrote:
> > Firstly I've tried to setup raid5 and then dm-crypt on top of it. After
> > discovering issue I've tried just raid5 and confirmed that mdadm itself
> > works as expected.
> >
> > And the last idea is to setup three dm-crypt partitions and then raid5 on
> > top of independently encrypted drives.
> >
> > So here are my results:
> >
> >           |  mdadm   | mdadm+dm-crypt | 3 x dm-crypt + mdadm |
> > Seq. read  | 168 Mb/s | 57 Mb/s        | 119 Mb/s             |
> > Seq. write | 80 Mb/s  | 36 Mb/s        | 64.4 Mb/s            |
> 
> dm-crypt will only use one core per device, so this is expected
> behavior (and I believe an issue that is being worked on). From these
> numbers it looks like you have a dual core or dual cpu system?
> 

Hi, Yes, The machine is home NAS with inexpensive Intel Core i3 CPU that
has two real cores and HT.
 
-- 
WBR, Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/