From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 11 18:39:40 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EB91065693;
	Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:39:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-yw0-f197.google.com (mail-yw0-f197.google.com
	[209.85.211.197])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8389D8FC1A;
	Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:39:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ywh35 with SMTP id 35so12515763ywh.7
	for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:39:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=hGN1wnc/smunzvwI8T8azBDCghURWRkVTZJvSTwS/lA=;
	b=SsZXrHdk+y+6igAHAHDSEw63Mcsxi90fDXYo00uukY+pJU/9yoAuqE89dK6RS/mkn6
	ZoedUhROnbAZ0cIWFR38CPJc2tAx9p2VA0vJFyTLdCpc9f8iUJOQ8Rqj7KgXDChC0Lo0
	gvgmzBJCmj5c/WgNmQ/DhvEHHuNJmKRgKMcqI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	b=b8u+nLOktDsPK5WKxvQfsGvvnRB4V7m0Ezwmc1JHUL1aXyPiUBAas2ahT6plNiqax4
	NrT/ZxKBXufpIEJK9XI8MPb+j3x91fQsoIA14LwAJVoPW7NZ1HaGmTra8g/EikCrIxdG
	4JsNXGnPJy33GjqMbfq8fHzngGYnM0LrwtNjM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.63.18 with SMTP id q18mr11866272ank.110.1263235170968; 
	Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:39:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E1NUO5m-0001aK-Uk@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
References: <cf9b1ee01001100708m7851418cmbb77cc3580d0fab3@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1NUO5m-0001aK-Uk@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:39:30 +0200
Message-ID: <cf9b1ee01001111039g21a3c81bja87a8a2825157fae@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com>
To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ZFS on top of GELI
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:39:40 -0000

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Pete French
<petefrench@ticketswitch.com> wrote:
>> GELI+ZFS and Debian Linux with MDRAID and cryptofs. Has anyone here
>> made any benchmarks regarding how much of a performance hit is caused
>> by using 2 geli devices as vdevs for a ZFS mirror pool in FreeBSD (a
>
> I havent done it directly on the same boxes, but I have two systems
> with idenitical drives, each with a ZFS mirror pool, one wth GELI, and
> one without. Simple read test shows no overhead in using GELI at all.
>
> I would recommend using the new AHCI driver though - greatly
> improves throughput.

How fast is the CPU in the system showing no overhead? Having no
noticable overhead whatsoever sounds extremely unlikely unless you are
actually using it on something like a very modern dualcore or better.

- Sincerely,
Dan Naumov