Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:56:26 +0800 From: "ke.han" <ke.han@redstarling.com> To: Nick Evans <nevans@syphen.net> Cc: freebsd-geom <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GELI hardware performance. Message-ID: <432380BA.209@redstarling.com> In-Reply-To: <20050910165926.40c5354d@speedstar.syphen.net> References: <20050910165926.40c5354d@speedstar.syphen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for the comparison. As a newcomer to both GELI and gbde, it would be niced to know how these numbers compare to no encryption on the same hardware. How hard would it be to run these performance tests on the same hardware with no GELI? It seems that for drives that put through over 100Mbs that your results of around 14 to 27 Mbs (block output) are pretty low. Am I readin the numbers wrong? comparing apples to oranges? any help in my understanding is appreciated as I'm trying to decide how to solve a new server setup. thanks, ke han Nick Evans wrote: >Just a quick performance comparison between software and hardware >backed GELI partitions with bonnie > >Software: > >Per char output: 12384 K/sec, 20.5% CPU >Block output: 14408 K/sec, 7.2% CPU >Rewrite: 6908 K/sec, 4.3% CPU > >Per char input: 18848 K/sec, 35.2% CPU >Block input: 13965 K/sec, 6.1% CPU > >Seeks/sec: 837.2, 5.7% CPU > > >Hardware: > >Per char output: 27107 K/sec, 54.4% CPU >Block output: 27109 K/sec, 18.9% CPU >Rewrite: 10201 K/sec, 6.8% CPU > >Per char input: 27370 K/sec, 57.0% CPU >Block input: 25463 K/sec, 13.2% CPU > >Seeks/sec: 709.3, 5.8% CPU > >This is using 256-bit AES with a VPN1401 Soekris board. There's a >definite improvement in throughput. > >Nick >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-geom@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-geom-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?432380BA.209>