| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:52:00 +1030 From: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com> To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet I'd like to seem some science. I'd like to know how much faster it really is, and for that proper testing needs to be done. Since Daniel's scheme uses the same amount of RAM as disk, an appropriate test would be to pin (at least) that amount of RAM to buffer cache, and then to fill the cache with the contents of the disk (i.e. cat /dev/disk > /dev/null.) This sets the stage for tests, which tests should not include the sync operation. I'd like to see actual numbers against such a setup versus Daniel's scheme. Since buffer cache is shared by all disks, obviously the test must not access any other drive. One thing I will admit: RAM disks are fast. What I don't know is how much work there is to access blocks that are already in the buffer cache. In principle I suppose it should be a little slower, but not much. I'd like to know, though. I'd do the test myself if I had a machine with enough RAM, but I don't. Daniel (apparently) does... -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists