| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100923063259.GA18250@dion.org.ua> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists