On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alan wrote:
> > On 2/25/08, Alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > the context here might make this question inappropriate, but i
> >> > installed f9 alpha inside virtualbox in two different ways, with only
> >> > one difference -- whether the all-encompassing root file system was
> >> > encrypted or not.
> >> >
> >> > within virtualbox, the encrypted VM is *waaaaay* slower than the
> >> > unencrypted one. should i expect the same performance difference
> >> with
> >> > regular hard disk installs? just curious. i expected a difference
> >> > but this is *hugely* noticeable and almost unusable.
> >>
> >> That sounds like an artifact of virtualbox. I am using full disk
> >> encryption on F9 alpha and I am seeing little, if any, slowdown. Maybe
> >> 64-bit helps.
> >
> > Same here, on i686.
>
> As a side note, I have run VMWare with and without the hardware
> virtualization. It DOES make a difference. I do not know if
> VirtualBox uses the hardware virtualization. If it does not, it
> should.
that may be, but the difference here has nothing to do with whether
the H/W virtualization is being used or not, it's whether encryption
is being used or not. in both cases, the status of the H/W
virtualization is going to be the same.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
