Hi Tim, It is not about "archaic". It is about ratio between storage throughput and CPU computational power. If you use very fast storage (SSD, as I did, or RAID controller), it can make any CPU relatively "archaic".
"Up to" was received on Dell D630 with SSD (fresh Vista Ultimate) and intensive read access. On the same machine you can get lower values of CPU load with lower intensity of storage access. Obviously, CPU load will be 0 if you don't access the data at all. If your results are about 3%, it means that your storage is "archaic" relatively to CPU or you do not exercise it on its full speed. WBR, Dmitry -----Original Message----- From: fde-boun...@www.xml-dev.com [mailto:fde-boun...@www.xml-dev.com] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:19 AM To: fde@www.xml-dev.com Subject: Re: [FDE] how FDE is implemented at system layer > > It is very CPU-consuming > > process. Up to 48% of the CPU power can be spent on encryption. > > Really? Maybe on archaic hardware. The numbers we've seen are closer to 3%. And of course, the marginal cost of additional CPU usage is zero unless your CPU meter is pegged. "Up to" can be very misleading. Up to 100% of the information in this email might be wrong. That doesn't mean it is. Encryption is not a CPU intensive operation on modern machines. I run our FDE product on my machines, and I often forget it's there. The overhead is not noticeable. -Tim _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list FDE@www.xml-dev.com http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list FDE@www.xml-dev.com http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
