linux-kernel - RAID + LUKS + LVM performance

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:08:56 +0000
From:	Mathias Buren <mathias.buren@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RAID + LUKS + LVM performance

Hi,

(please cc me as I'm not subscribed)

I've a friend who's going to set up a fileserver consisting of 8x 1.5TB
HDDs, an 8-port PCI-E RAID card (Areca ARC-1220 @
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/pcie.htm ) etc.
The plan is create a RAID5 array spanning all the disks, then create 4
partitions. These 4 partitions would be encrypted using LUKS (Twofish or
AES256).
These 4 encrypted partition would be set up in RAID0 using Linux' software
(mdadm), then LVM would be used on top of that (one big PV, one big VG and
a big LV or so).

The reason for this is that kcryptd is not multithreaded (afaik). By having
4 encrypted partitions, then md0 on top of them, I'm forcing 4 kcryptd
processes to run on all four cpu cores whenever something is written to the
disks, which should improve (encryption) performance.

Is this a good way of doing it, or is there a smarter way?

Regards,

Mathias,

--
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/