From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 19 12:06:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A52816A4DD for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:06:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DDC43D6B for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:06:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (mbcncv@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6JC6IWv045920 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k6JC6Iaj045919; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200607191206.k6JC6Iaj045919@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20060718110442.S20487@fw.reifenberger.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.0-20051224 ("Ronay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:08:39 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: VIA padlock performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:06:26 -0000 Michael Reifenberger wrote: > with a via epia EN-15000 MB and an U160 scsi disk I get with eli(4) I get > ~27-40MB/s read/write performance trough eli(4) with AES265 key. > > cryptotest gives: > (totum)(root) ./cryptotest -a aes256 100000 4096 > 7.838 sec, 200000 aes256 crypts, 4096 bytes, 104511751 byte/sec, 797.4 > Mb/sec Quite cool. On my EPIA 10000 (1GHz VIA Nehemia) I did some performance testing a few months ago under RELENG_6 (not sophisticated enough to call it benchmarking). For testing I used scp(1) of a large file (an ISO9660 image, 213 MBytes), because that's what I often need to do, so it's an important thing for me. These are the results (averages of several runs): A - No padlock(4) loaded: 213 MB in 56 seconds (3.8 MB/s) 37.5 s user (67%) 10.0 s sys (18%) 8.5 s int (15%) 0.0 s idle ( 0%) B - With padlock loaded, no bandwidth limit: 213 MB in 33 seconds (6.5 MB/s) 8.0 s user (24%) 16.0 s sys (48%) 9.0 s int (27%) 0.0 s idle ( 0%) C - With padlock loaded, bandwidth limited: 213 MB in 58 seconds (3.7 MB/s) 7.5 s user (13%) 14.5 s sys (25%) 7.0 s int (12%) 29.0 s idle (50%) As you can see, the throughput of scp was almost doubled when padlock(4) was enabled (from 3.8 MB/s to 6.5 MB/s). The time spent in user mode drops to about a fifth, while the "sys" time increases by 60%, which is to be expected (caused by the overhead of setting up and running the padlock engine). The interrupt time doesn't change at all. I did a third test where I limited the bandwith (Dummynet) to about the same value that was reached during the first test. Now the throughput was the same as in the first test (of course), but the CPU was 50% idle and available for other tasks. The other side of the test was a 1.6 GHz Pentium-M which had the test file in a large RAM disk, so the bottleneck was clearly the EPIA system. 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. Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse. -- Larry Wall