From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 20 03:03:23 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 EEB1137B401 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 03:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sauron.fto.de (p15106025.pureserver.info [217.160.140.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1B743FA3 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 03:03:23 -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 9B4A825C123; Tue, 20 May 2003 12:03:22 +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 11012-09; Tue, 20 May 2003 12:03:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from giskard.foundation.hs (p509194D7.dip.t-dialin.net [80.145.148.215]) by sauron.fto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF90F25C119; Tue, 20 May 2003 12:03:20 +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 MAA96157; Tue, 20 May 2003 12:03:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hschaefer@fto.de) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:03:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Schaefer X-X-Sender: heiko@daneel.foundation.hs To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <31414.1053424323@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20030520120114.U60060@daneel.foundation.hs> References: <31414.1053424323@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fto.de cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 10:03:24 -0000 Hi Poul, > In message <20030520105030.U60060@daneel.foundation.hs>, Heiko Schaefer writes: > > >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 ?! > > Make sure you use as large as possible a sectorisize on your > GBDE devices, you set this with "gbde init /dev/bla -i", this > does affect your performance a fair bit. i have already set it to 4k, which i believe matches the settings of my partition. but i still don't see why the processes that are named gbde-something would take up _that_ much cpu time ... does that look reasonable and explicable to you? regards, Heiko -- Free Software. Why put up with inferior code and antisocial corporations? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html