From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0AA9274 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:32:36 +0200 (CEST) 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 ivMqX1qwEMAF for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:32:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.absint.com (one4vision-tunnel.absint.com [212.82.36.133]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:32:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from absint.com (stahl.absint.com [192.168.10.33]) by mail.absint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B22E16441B8 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:32:31 +0200 (CEST) References: <20090803125342.CF87216440B5@mail.absint.com> <20090804004626.4a811f96@gmail.com> From: Henrik Theiling Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:32:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Salatiel Filho's message of "Thu\, 6 Aug 2009 08\:02\:23 -0300") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] 1,5 TB partition: use cbc-essiv or xts-plain? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de Hi! Salatiel Filho writes: >>.... >> serpent-cbc-essiv:sha256 > I really liked this one, using aes-cbs-essiv:sha256 [keysize=256] i > was able to get only 0.89MB/s reading via NFS from my ARM 266Mhz. > Using serpent-cbc-essiv:sha256[keysize=256] i can get 2,66MB/s, > which is really good. Fascinating. I thought Serpent was universally the slowest of the three big algorithms (AES/Rijndael, Twofish, Serpent) that was used if you wanted highest security margins. Your speed test results come quite unexpected for me, especially since AES and Twofish have assembler modules while Serpent has only a C implementation in the kernel (as of last time I checked). For me, speed is quite secondary, because I have a fast machine which crypts much faster than the USB-2.0 interface can possibly serve the data. **Henrik