On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Arno Wagner <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I cant remember the numbers right now, but yes, i know for sure that my WD15EARS drives can do a lot more than this. I think the number for a 3x 1.5 tb setup without any encryption was around 190 mb/s.
My need is capacity, redundancy, price, security, and speed in that order. SSD would be way to expensive for at setup like mine. The drives are more than able to fill up my current CPU.
Hi Lasse,
have you done any benchmarks for kcryptd to determine the
bottleneck is your CPU? My intuition would be that for this
setup and the stated speed it is likely, but better be sure
than to optimize nthe wrong parameter.
I cant remember the numbers right now, but yes, i know for sure that my WD15EARS drives can do a lot more than this. I think the number for a 3x 1.5 tb setup without any encryption was around 190 mb/s.
As to options, basically a faster CPU and/or more cores
is one, the other is SSD, if the bottleneck is with the
disks. A third one is a different controller and/or
bus attachment of the controller. It is also possible
that a singel disk slows things down. HDDs can get donw
to 50% of the start-of-disk speed somehwere between the
50% coapacity mark and the end.
My need is capacity, redundancy, price, security, and speed in that order. SSD would be way to expensive for at setup like mine. The drives are more than able to fill up my current CPU.
The second thing you need to ask you, is if you are
only interessded in linear read speed. If not, an
increase 70 -> 100 may well be insigificant in the
access mix you are using and not worth the investment.
I'm mainly interested in having good speed for sequential reading speed, you know, reading and transferring large files across the network. I rarely have more than one or two concurrent file operations.
--
Lasse Jensen (fafler at gmail dot com)
_______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
