Robert P. J. Day wrote:
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.
True, but the 'cost' or performance impact of the encryption will be much higher
without the hardware virtualization, essentially making it a bigger problem if
it already is impacting performance.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
