From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:12:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7076216A40F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:12:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A772B43D46 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:11:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k9CGB38n012477; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:11:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9CGB2ei040843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:11:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061012115832.15edc1b0@sentex.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:09:03 -0400 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, ohmer@epita.info From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <200610121537.k9CFbWpw069896@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <1160664469.92207.51.camel@moe.cload.net> <200610121537.k9CFbWpw069896@lurza.secnetix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: VIA C7 support X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:12:23 -0000 At 11:37 AM 10/12/2006, Oliver Fromme wrote: >Matthieu Michaud wrote: > > I rent a small server based on a VIA C7 on which I installed a > > 6.2-PRERELEASE as of today (see dmesg and kernconf attached). It runs > > fairly well but I wonder if it couldn't be faster. > > > > According to padlock(4) man page, crypto hardware support is available > > by adding padlock, crypto and cryptodev kernel options. I compiled it as > > modules. I haven't noticed difference between 'openssl speed' and > > 'openssl speed -engine padlock'. I attached results. > >I don't know if the openssl command really uses the padlock >engine. I doubt it. It will if you tell it to, but remember, its only AES that it will speed up. You wont see a difference in things like 3des etc. Just do the tests for aes Try something like openssl speed -evp aes-256-ecb -engine padlock vs openssl speed -evp aes-256-ecb -engine dynamic On a CPU: VIA C3 Nehemiah+RNG+AES (796.77-MHz 686-class CPU) I get type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-ecb 37610.62k 142398.18k 389573.81k 678504.21k 868056.96k aes-256-ecb 4923.20k 5143.88k 5222.51k 5256.46k 5276.31k For comparison, here is the same test on a Celeron 2.6 and an AMD 3800 aes-256-ecb 39727.25k 41359.33k 42596.01k 42919.64k 42940.31k aes-256-ecb 27408.65k 32035.54k 32623.81k 32767.08k 32822.06k ---Mike >But with scp the throughput doubles when padlock is enabled >on my C3 Nehemiah. So it clearly helps scp. (FAST_IPSEC >also benefits from it, but I don't use IPSEC so I don't >have numbers.) > > > Finally, I tried to read 16M from /dev/random and /dev/urandom to look > > at RNG support. It reads at 2M/s on both device. Comparing to a P4 1.7G > > and P4 2.8G, it's few : they both performs around 14M/s on almost as > > recent kernel. > >There's a difference in quality: I doubt that those 16MB >that you got in about one second on the P4 were really >as random as the 2 MB that you got on the C7. > >Also take into account that you usually don't read that >much data from /dev/random. Quality is much more important >than speed. > >Best regards > Oliver > >-- >Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing >Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd >Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author >and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. > >"It combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different >sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C >with the readability of PostScript." > -- Jamie Zawinski, when asked: "What's wrong with perl?" >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"