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 WLRzcuINB7pj for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:15:29 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:15:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:15:15 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer Message-ID: <20121229231515.GA6503@citd.de> References: <50DF635C.90003@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50DF635C.90003@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] [ANNOUNCE] cryptsetup 1.6.0-rc1 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Milan Broz Cc: dm-crypt On 29.12.2012 22:40, Milan Broz wrote: > > EXAMPLE: > # cryptsetup benchmark > # Tests are approximate using memory only (no storage IO). > PBKDF2-sha1 111077 iterations per second > PBKDF2-sha256 53718 iterations per second > PBKDF2-sha512 18832 iterations per second > PBKDF2-ripemd160 89775 iterations per second > PBKDF2-whirlpool 23918 iterations per second > # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption > aes-cbc 128b 212.0 MiB/s 428.0 MiB/s > serpent-cbc 128b 23.1 MiB/s 66.0 MiB/s > twofish-cbc 128b 46.1 MiB/s 50.5 MiB/s > aes-cbc 256b 163.0 MiB/s 350.0 MiB/s > serpent-cbc 256b 23.1 MiB/s 66.0 MiB/s > twofish-cbc 256b 47.0 MiB/s 50.0 MiB/s > aes-xts 256b 190.0 MiB/s 190.0 MiB/s > serpent-xts 256b 58.4 MiB/s 58.0 MiB/s > twofish-xts 256b 49.0 MiB/s 49.5 MiB/s > aes-xts 512b 175.0 MiB/s 175.0 MiB/s > serpent-xts 512b 59.0 MiB/s 58.0 MiB/s > twofish-xts 512b 48.5 MiB/s 49.5 MiB/s > > (Note for example AES-NI decryption optimization effect in example above.) Are you sure (about AES-NI)? I get slightly higher values: Tested with a self-compiled vanilla 3.7.1 kernel. Core i7 3770 (Ivy Bridge), 4 cores, HT, no overclocking: PBKDF2-sha1 393609 iterations per second PBKDF2-sha256 257003 iterations per second PBKDF2-sha512 91915 iterations per second PBKDF2-ripemd160 386073 iterations per second PBKDF2-whirlpool 154748 iterations per second # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption aes-cbc 128b 671.0 MiB/s 2483.0 MiB/s serpent-cbc 128b 98.3 MiB/s 320.4 MiB/s twofish-cbc 128b 205.0 MiB/s 377.6 MiB/s aes-cbc 256b 492.0 MiB/s 1816.0 MiB/s serpent-cbc 256b 98.3 MiB/s 319.4 MiB/s twofish-cbc 256b 204.4 MiB/s 375.6 MiB/s aes-xts 256b 1237.0 MiB/s 1252.0 MiB/s serpent-xts 256b 306.7 MiB/s 291.4 MiB/s twofish-xts 256b 336.7 MiB/s 338.3 MiB/s aes-xts 512b 1065.0 MiB/s 1076.0 MiB/s serpent-xts 512b 309.4 MiB/s 293.0 MiB/s twofish-xts 512b 336.7 MiB/s 337.7 MiB/s Even my 2.5 years old low-spec first-generation (for AES-NI) machine gets slightly better results: Core i5 650 (Westmere/Clarkdale), 2 cores, no HT, no overlocking: PBKDF2-sha1 299251 iterations per second PBKDF2-sha256 175229 iterations per second PBKDF2-sha512 58409 iterations per second PBKDF2-ripemd160 283705 iterations per second PBKDF2-whirlpool 94568 iterations per second # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption aes-cbc 128b 711.3 MiB/s 1749.0 MiB/s serpent-cbc 128b 67.6 MiB/s 282.7 MiB/s twofish-cbc 128b 165.2 MiB/s 227.8 MiB/s aes-cbc 256b 540.0 MiB/s 1340.0 MiB/s serpent-cbc 256b 68.0 MiB/s 283.4 MiB/s twofish-cbc 256b 165.8 MiB/s 227.8 MiB/s aes-xts 256b 957.0 MiB/s 952.0 MiB/s serpent-xts 256b 243.8 MiB/s 258.0 MiB/s twofish-xts 256b 207.8 MiB/s 207.2 MiB/s aes-xts 512b 832.2 MiB/s 835.0 MiB/s serpent-xts 512b 243.3 MiB/s 257.2 MiB/s twofish-xts 512b 208.2 MiB/s 206.8 MiB/s -- Matthias