From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 mBsOI1-gKCiy for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:40:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:40:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E311257.1030109@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:40:07 +0200 From: Milan Broz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E309CC0.6010706@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E309CC0.6010706@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] LUKS & TrueCrypt - Speed Test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_F=E1bregas?= Cc: dm-crypt@saout.de On 07/28/2011 01:18 AM, Jorge F=E1bregas wrote: > - Between the above tests, I shut down the machine (to flush filesystem > cache). echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches does the same in more controlled way > - my system kernel: 2.6.35.13-92.fc14.i686 Can you use something more recent? There were huge changes. The same for userspace. BTW do you know that TC7 uses dm-crypt as backend? So with the same mode and alignemnt you should get the same results (except chained ciphers in TC). > As you can see, there's almost a 4 minute difference. I was expecting > LUKS to be faster (as dm-crypt is a kernel module) and TrueCrypt runs > mainly in user space isn't it? Do you think the cipher operation modes > (XTS vs CBC) played a role in this difference? Have any of you performed > a similar test? Perhaps because you tested different modes... Use the same mode in cryptsetup cryptstup luksFormat -c aes-xts-plain64 -s 512 ...=20 I would really wonder if speed differs, TC7 uses dmsetup to configure dm-crypt mapping on Linux :-) It uses userspace (and FUSE) only for old containers and some magic for hidden container. Milan