From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:20:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p418KT3F019507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 04:20:29 -0400 Received: from [10.36.9.109] (vpn2-9-109.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.9.109]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p418KSK0019354 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 04:20:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4DBD17CA.1020004@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 10:20:26 +0200 From: Milan Broz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4DBC9D78.8070203@divisive.info> In-Reply-To: <4DBC9D78.8070203@divisive.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] LUKS performance penalty List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de On 05/01/2011 01:38 AM, michael dye wrote: > I find that using LUKS results in a tremendous performance penalty: > 156MB/s writes with LUKS v. 613MB/s without on a PCI-E SSD using ext4. > Am I failing to set up LUKS correctly? What can I do to improve > performance? Please retest it with 2.6.38 kernel which uses per cpu encryption threads. You should get better throughput on multicore systems (with some real fs test using more threads, for one thread it will be probably not much better, it run encryption on CPU core which submitted it.) Milan