Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Disk Encryption Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Ubuntu Disk Encryption Benchmarks

    Ubuntu Disk Encryption Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Ubuntu Disk Encryption Benchmarks

    Introduced in Ubuntu 7.10 was install-time encryption support where using the alternate installer one can fully encrypt their disk in an LVM using dm-crypt. Unfortunately, the Ubiquity installer in Ubuntu 8.04 continues to lack LVM and encryption support, but using Ubuntu 8.04 Alpha 6 we have looked at the performance cost of this encrypted configuration on Ubuntu Linux. Rather than looking directly at the disk read/write overhead caused by the encryption process, we have provided some benchmarks to see how the real-world performance is impacted in both gaming and other desktop tasks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=12036

  • BlueKoala
    replied
    RE:

    My first post after watching so many other people post =]

    I felt I had to share my thoughts on hdparm, my results are actually very consistent on a WD750gbs. It usually sticks around 94MB/s with little fluctuation.

    Also one thing I would have liked to see is data transfer from one HDD to another as a USB stick may be bottlenecking a little. Also if a rough comparison of CPU usage would also be nice. I really couldn't expect CPU usage to be an exact science, but rather just to give an idea of how much if at all it uses the CPU in comparison to non-encrypted drive.

    That's all for now

    Leave a comment:


  • WSmart
    replied
    IO thrashing and trans OS encryption key access

    I'd like to see what it does to IO wait times, maybe some photos of some severe IO wait time graphing with and then without the encryption. I've had IO wait times on my mind this week, maybe falling from the recent Phoronix start up time comparison article. Doesn't matter how many CPU cores you have when the hard drive is buried by requests. I'd love to see a RAID 1 solution where the heads of the drives work independently, focusing on transfer speeds first and then mirroring each other in the back ground. Most RAID 1 solutions only do mirroring. I'd rather see the drives working as if it was one hard drive, a virtual hard drive, with three heads.

    I love the idea of using encryption, but I don't like the idea of having even more hard drive thrashing. And my experience with encryption is soured from using XP where after the OS crashed, I couldn't get any files out of my personal folders. You would think they would make that user friendly. They didn't. I wonder how that works with this Linux solution?

    Live responsibly and please don't drink and breathe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by gemidjy View Post
    Why are you putting the Phoronix sign on the images you publish on your site? It is not something that noone else can do, right? Even they are taken with a digicam, which puts you in even more miserable situation..

    thanks in advance

    It's quite simple actually... It's because of the unfortunate situation of "blog spammers" or whatever you want to call them. It's a large problem with those copying our content and posting it on their own website/blog in full without our written permission or even any attribution.... Watermarks are also needed for those hotlinking off of our servers.

    Leave a comment:


  • gemidjy
    replied
    phoronix on the images

    Why are you putting the Phoronix sign on the images you publish on your site? It is not something that noone else can do, right? Even they are taken with a digicam, which puts you in even more miserable situation..

    thanks in advance

    Leave a comment:


  • Ole-Martin Broz
    replied
    Good review.

    Good good, the impact is less than i really thought.

    I just got myself a new box, which gets linux smashed in soon, maybe ill test encryption and check how the system gets affected.

    Well, i dont got anything to hide, so no point for me, however, as i said, the impact was low,

    Can some1 try this on a single core cpu ? i just got a feelin that makes the impact even bigger, everything does on single cores.( in windows especially)

    Leave a comment:


  • hoho
    replied
    Really strange results you get, Danjo.
    Mine are also pretty stable with ~1% fluctuations like Kano's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Only small changes here:

    for x in $(seq 3); do hdparm -tT /dev/sda; done

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 1664 MB in 2.00 seconds = 832.53 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.02 seconds = 80.88 MB/sec

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 1718 MB in 2.00 seconds = 859.67 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 240 MB in 3.02 seconds = 79.47 MB/sec

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 1706 MB in 2.00 seconds = 852.88 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 242 MB in 3.01 seconds = 80.38 MB/sec

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    As soon as you have got no background tasks it is better. Use single or S bootoption.
    That's how the tests were done.

    The only difference was me leaning over and letting out some natual gas during the tests. So does that mean my bodily functions have a direct effect on drive performance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    As soon as you have got no background tasks it is better. Use single or S bootoption.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X