Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:35:50 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Hugo Silva <hugo@barafranca.com> Subject: Re: Encrypted zfs? Message-ID: <20070829113209.C1528@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070828175402.GB39562@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <46D2C812.8090106@gmail.com> <20070828104625.GB36596@garage.freebsd.pl> <46D40833.2030007@barafranca.com> <20070828175402.GB39562@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: PJD> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:34:11PM +0100, Hugo Silva wrote: PJD> > How's the performance on the geli-backed pool ? PJD> PJD> It depends a lot on CPU speed, but you should be ready for visible PJD> performance drop. I'll give you two examples: [examples snipped] PJD> But don't you worry, when you must have encryption, you don't really PJD> care about performance. And when you decided not to use encryption, PJD> because it introduces too big overhead, it only means that you didn't PJD> need encryption in the first place:) Well, I suppose most usage patterns imply that only part of data really needs encryption (as only part really needs copies>1 or compression), hence it would be *extremely* useful if one can ``zfs set encryption=on tank/home/joe'' (could it be done via pluggable geom modules or something?) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070829113209.C1528>