From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 03:40:29 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 DD42737B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 03:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0.freebsd-services.com (survey.codeburst.net [195.149.39.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89B843FAF for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 03:40:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@freebsd-services.com) Received: by mx0.freebsd-services.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 970921B214; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:40:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:40:27 +0100 From: Paul Richards To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20030528104027.GD6015@survey.codeburst.net> References: <20030528071326.GA29506@gvr.gvr.org> <32216.1054109479@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32216.1054109479@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gbde Performance - 35Mb/s vs 5.2 MB/s 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: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:40:30 -0000 On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 10:11:19AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20030528071326.GA29506@gvr.gvr.org>, Guido van Rooij writes: > >On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Heiko Schaefer wrote: > >> > >> Poul gave me the following tip on this list in a mail on Tue, 29 Apr 2003: > >> > >> "Remember to set the sectorsize in gbde (gbde init -i) to the fragment > >> size of your filesystem (typically 2048 for ufs), this is critical > >> for performance." > >> > > > >If this is so important, why isn't this the default? > > Because I have no way of knowing that peple will in fact be using > UFS/FFS on the GBDE encrypted partition, and even if they do, I have > no way of knowing the fragment size they will use. > > I considered making the sectorsize a mandatory argument, but decided > against it. Maybe I was wrong. It might make more sense to mandate an argument that indicates what filesystem they intend to put on top of it and then base the defaults from that. It would be more user friendly. -- Tis a wise thing to know what is wanted, wiser still to know when it has been achieved and wisest of all to know when it is unachievable for then striving is folly. [Magician]