From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 20 02:08:14 2003 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 2994A37B401 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sauron.fto.de (p15106025.pureserver.info [217.160.140.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E383243F3F for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:08:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hschaefer@fto.de) Received: from localhost (localhost.fto.de [127.0.0.1]) by sauron.fto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69BA25C122 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 11:08:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sauron.fto.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sauron [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09195-08 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 11:08:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from giskard.foundation.hs (p509194D7.dip.t-dialin.net [80.145.148.215]) by sauron.fto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1923425C11F for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 11:08:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from daneel.foundation.hs (daneel.foundation.hs [192.168.20.2]) by giskard.foundation.hs (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA95854 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 11:08:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hschaefer@fto.de) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:08:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Schaefer X-X-Sender: heiko@daneel.foundation.hs To: current@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030520105030.U60060@daneel.foundation.hs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fto.de Subject: gbde performance question 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:08:14 -0000 Hey all, especially Poul, putting my hardware troubles (still working on those, i am planning to buy intel-based, non-el-cheapo hardware tomorrow, if i can get any more flipped bits unti then. i've exhausted all possible causes that i care to check, by now) aside for a minute, i wanted to ask about the performance i see. to be blunt, i wonder what is taking gbde so long to do its thing :) less bluntly, i'm looking for input if i am interpreting the numbers i see correctly, and if they make sense to someone who knows the code. my hardware (again) is a amd athlon xp+ 1800, i got 512mb of ddr ram. what i do is that i copy data between two local gbde encrypted disks (two separate, rather modern - udma 66/100 - disks, on two different controllers). iostat 1 says something like that: tty ad0 ad1 ad2 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 153 60.57 139 8.25 0.00 0 0.00 31.37 285 8.73 0 0 89 2 9 0 152 60.52 136 8.06 0.00 0 0.00 31.39 284 8.72 0 0 91 0 9 0 153 60.28 144 8.45 0.00 0 0.00 31.15 294 8.95 0 0 92 2 6 0 153 58.17 143 8.11 0.00 0 0.00 31.35 282 8.62 0 0 88 2 9 i get roughtly 9 MB/s throughput on each disk (one disk writing, one reading) - and most of the time iostat (just like top) says that my cpu is more or less saturated. in "ps auwx" i see USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND root 509 37.9 0.0 0 12 ?? DL 9:53AM 22:24.24 (g_bde ad2s1e.bde) root 513 34.3 0.0 0 12 ?? DL 9:53AM 11:49.08 (g_bde ad0s1e.bde) i figure this is the amount of cpu time that is used by raw number crunching (and for example does not include disk-io or anything of that sort). that would mean that ~1/3 of my cpu can do ~8 MB/s of gbde's crypto. if so, i could estimate that gbde can theoretically process roughly 25MB/s on this athlon 1800+. that looks like an rather low number to me. sites such as http://www.tcs.hut.fi/~helger/aes/rijndael.html suggest that on a cpu of that speed, memory bandwidth should be the limiting factor when using AES/Rijndael. am i overlooking something ?! thanks for any insight you can provide on the matter, regards, Heiko -- Free Software. Why put up with inferior code and antisocial corporations? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html