From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ms@citd.de>
Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id ghypDFyKUgQk for <dm-crypt@saout.de>;
 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:23:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from awesome.dsw2k3.info (awesome.dsw2k3.info
 [IPv6:2a01:198:661:1f::3])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:23:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:16:49 +0200
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de>
Message-ID: <20120827181649.GA8904@citd.de>
References: <CAARet7mk9yKXYFT9ybYx36rp1MK2o4qf7SjkpV44wHYtBY3SkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAARet7mz3OgnMENUL9FLrh_=BensNhvn5Tp4YF4oXL_BKP8j=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <503B90D7.5060208@redhat.com> <k1g40e$ton$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <k1g40e$ton$1@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Using AES-256 Controller Card
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: "Brian J. Murrell" <brian@interlinx.bc.ca>
Cc: dm-crypt@saout.de

On 27.08.2012 11:33, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 12-08-27 11:23 AM, Milan Broz wrote:
> > 
> > It is (SATA) Chipset FDE (full disk encryption), IOW few layers below
> > dmcrypt operates.
> 
> Is there any add-on (i.e. USB perhaps) hardware that can assist dm-crypt?

Contrary to OP: AES-NI

I did the test that is descripted on this page:
http://wiki.debianforum.de/Benchmark_f%C3%BCr_Festplattenverschl%C3%BCsselung
(Extended to 10GiB instead of the described 512MiB)

My computer (Core i7 3770): does:
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.62266 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.71015 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.67001 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.61184 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.79301 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.96204 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.59942 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.61019 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.72707 s, 1.1 GB/s
10735321088 bytes (11 GB) copied, 9.88943 s, 1.1 GB/s

So it's between 1066.52 MiB/s and 1027.7 MiB/s

While the test is running, one core is @100%, the other 3 @50%
(The 4 HT-Cores aren't used) so there is a bottleneck somewhere and 
this isn't the theoretical maximum.





Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.