On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:24, Heinz Diehl<htd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.08.2009, Henrik Theiling wrote: > >> Fascinating. I thought Serpent was universally the slowest of the >> three big algorithms (AES/Rijndael, Twofish, Serpent) that was used if >> you wanted highest security margins. Your speed test results come >> quite unexpected for me... > > The question is: how has this been measured, and is it faster on both read > and write operations? E.g. a simple "hdparm -tT /dev/xxx" is not sufficient. > I just encrypted the partition , put some random data there [i do not care about write speed in this particular storage, it is just a NAS (ARM 266 + 128RAM running debian lenny)], then drop_caches , export the data using nfs, mount from another machine and copy that file. Repeated the proccess using aes and using serpent. Serpent is much faster ... I really don't know which cipher is/shouldbe faster, but serpent gives me a great speed ... > How about a bonnie++ run, e.g. something like > "bonnie++ -u htd:users -d /mnt/test -s 16016m -m liesel -n 16:100000:16:6" > > > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt > -- []'s Salatiel "O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente". _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
