Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:48:33 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cryptodev HW (aesni) vs software Message-ID: <20151123174833.0e36619c@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20151123145326.63d3203b@nonamehost.local> References: <20151120200325.2baade9c@nonamehost.local> <20151120192920.119bbf91@gumby.homeunix.com> <20151122130329.6ea9b9c6@nonamehost.local> <86lh9qhtuw.fsf@WorkBox.Home> <20151123145326.63d3203b@nonamehost.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:53:26 +0200 Ivan Klymenko wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:38:47 -0600 > Brandon J. Wandersee <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ivan Klymenko writes: > > > > > I hope the problem has now become more visible? > > > > No. State what you believe the "problem" to be. We need to know how > > what actually happened is different from what you expected to > > happen. > > Problem 1 > At two loaded modules cryptodev and aesni to encrypt selected slower cryptodev is known to be slower than userland acceleration. > Problem 2 > Without any loaded modules cryptodev and aesni encryption occurs at > the same rate as in the loaded module aesni - which suggests that > hardware encryption is absolutely not working. If I'm understanding you correctly, it's also consistent with both cases using userland acceleration. The aesni kernel module provides AES-NI support for crypto/cryptodev in the kernel, not in userland. > Problem 3 > In the best case FreeBSD inferior Linux in encryption by as much as > 23% at exactly the same hardware I think hardware would be more than 23% faster than software.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151123174833.0e36619c>