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 e4HSdllvj5cF for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:10:25 +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 ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:10:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:10:21 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer Message-ID: <20140130221021.GA8079@citd.de> References: <52E90EA3.2020404@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52E90EA3.2020404@riseup.net> Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] benchmark, kernel, libgcrypt, comparisons List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "shmick@riseup.net" Cc: dm-crypt@saout.de On 30.01.2014 01:22, shmick@riseup.net wrote: > serpent decryption is vastly faster, twofish in general but seems AES isn't > > # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption > aes-cbc 128b 150.2 MiB/s 180.4 MiB/s > aes-cbc 256b 117.5 MiB/s 136.0 MiB/s > aes-xts 256b 171.3 MiB/s 176.6 MiB/s > aes-xts 512b 131.4 MiB/s 134.1 MiB/s Just to get a little indication of the "smidge" better performance of hardware accelerated AES. This is what i get for AES on Core i7 4770 (a.k.a. Haswell) # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption aes-cbc 128b 753.2 MiB/s 3305.0 MiB/s aes-cbc 256b 551.4 MiB/s 2509.0 MiB/s aes-xts 256b 2799.0 MiB/s 2853.0 MiB/s aes-xts 512b 2154.0 MiB/s 2162.0 MiB/s -- Matthias