From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 11 14:54:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E759B16A4CE; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:54:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from av9-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (av9-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.116]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A8743D5E; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:54:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com) Received: by av9-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 96BC337EBA; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:54:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av9-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D5937E4B; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:54:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from sentinel (h211n1fls11o822.telia.com [213.64.66.211]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2293D37E6F; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:54:25 +0100 (CET) From: "Daniel Eriksson" To: "'Maxim Sobolev'" , Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:54:19 +0100 Organization: Home Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <41BB0305.7000206@portaone.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcTfjax1i96an0iPRb27iUEEYL/yiAAAoJ/A cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: GBDE write performance really sucks X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:54:27 -0000 Maxim Sobolev wrote: > I have noticed that GBDE write performance is very low, even > on modest > hardware (3.2 P4 with 1MB cache and 7200 IDE HDD): If you look through the freebsd-current archive you'll find a mail from me called "Simple BDE disc encryption benchmark" (2004-08-06). In that very simple benchmark I got quite different results on much slower hardware. I'll paste the entire mail below. As you can see from the benchmark, on old and slow hardware I managed to get ~4.5MB/s write performance (1.7GB written in 379 seconds). Could there be a problem with your test setup? ---[snip]--- Hi! I just ran a very simple benchmark on the GBDE disc encryption in CURRENT. The benchmark setup looked like this: * Slow machine (Celeron 366, 128MB mem) * 5-CURRENT from yesterday, running off of some old ATA disc * 2 x 9GB 10k rpm SCSI discs hooked up to an Adaptec 2940 The benchmark was to copy the /usr directory (copied from the ATA disc, 1.7GB) or a directory containing big files (/bigfiles, 1.7GB in 16 files created by 'dd if=/dev/random ...') from scsi disc 1 to scsi disc 2. I ran each benchmark twice and took a simple average of the results. unencrypted to unencrypted: /usr : 697 real 10.6 user 235 sys (~50% idle) /bigfiles: 123 real 0.4 user 84 sys (~25% idle) unencrypted to encrypted: /usr : 1778 real 10.7 user 236 sys (~35% idle) /bigfiles: 379 real 0.4 user 82 sys (~10% idle) encrypted to encrypted: /usr : 1978 real 11.6 user 242 sys (~25% idle) /bigfiles: 615 real 0.4 user 80 sys (0% idle) The only time the CPU was completely busy was when copying /bigfiles from encrypted to encrypted. ---[snip]--- /Daniel Eriksson