From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:49:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:49:30 -0400 Received: from ci176196-a.grnvle1.sc.home.com ([24.4.120.228]:55568 "HELO cavuaviation.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:49:23 -0400 Subject: Re: encrypted swap From: Billy Harvey To: lk In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807103637.00a88b60@pop.prism.gatech.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807103637.00a88b60@pop.prism.gatech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.12 (Preview Release) Date: 07 Aug 2001 10:48:44 -0400 Message-Id: <997195727.7775.9.camel@rhino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > This is a should-if debate, in my opinion. That is, not if you can do it, > but should you. Has anybody thought of the performance hit that you would > take encrypting your swap? > > David Maynor Insignificant I'd think. Disk is already thousands of times slower than RAM. Ever needing to swap at all is a huge penalty - if the crypto adds 10% system access time to that (a long time for RAM and hardly anything for disk), who'd notice? Billy