On 07/28/2011 01:11 AM, Arno Wagner wrote: > There is an old gemran egineering saying: > > "wer mist mist mist" > > (along the lines of "Those who measure measure crap") > I think it applies here. Hello Amo, I warned everyone that this wasn't a pro test :) At least, I laid down the specifics involved. > Real-time is tricky. It does not reflect effort invested. If you > look at the sys itime, you see that the crypto-effort is only about > 90 seconds more. Even that is pretty much below the measurement > error. I agree here. I shouldn't have paid much attention to real time. Nonetheless I'm still curious about the little difference... > Very likely the differences are due to storage differences > and do not show crypto-speed differences. I used the same external drive for both tests. > I suggest you run both tests at least 3 times and make sure > your storage is significantly faster than the crypto, e.g. > by doing this between RAM disks or SSD storage. Also a complex > disk access patterhn like rsync is not suitable as it may > have complex interactions with caching and buffering. I didn't want to go with sequential & random read/writes (with different block sizes etc) as I wanted a rough test out of the very same tool I use every day (rsync) with the same data on the same disk. I understand the crypto involved (CPU-wise) is much faster than the slow I/O of my external drive but that's what I have. Regarding repeating the test, I totally agree with that. Thanks for the input. Regards, Jorge _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
