Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian A. Seklecki" <lavalamp@spiritual-machines.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: ubsec(4) and geli(4) Benchmarks (WAS: Re: freebsd encrypted hard disk? (fwd)) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904011340370.52845@vger.digitalfreaks.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All: Has anyone bench-marked the performance improvements associated with various ubsec models in conjunction with OpenSSL cryptodev acceleration of geli(4) in the kernel? I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm a pilgrim on unholy land here. I'm precluding hifn(4), padlock(4), and gblx(4), which are nice for offsetting low power CPUs on embedded platforms, from my question, and assuming that the only supported SSL accelerator that will actually 'compliment', as oppose to 'hinder' a multi-core Xeon system, when offloaded, is ubsec(4)? Thoughts? ~BAS ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:33:30 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Cc: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd encrypted hard disk? > > It turns out that on a multi-core machine a geli thread is started on > each core for each disk (4 cores, two disks): and it is actually used when many transfers are done in parallel. my core2duo saturates (both cores 100% load) at about 100MB/s disk I/O _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0904011340370.52845>