> Uhm, but the dd command wasn't :-) (the guest's root disk is sd2, not sd0...) > > Now our numbers align much better: > > # dd if=/dev/rsd2c of=/dev/null bs=10m count=50 > 50+0 records in > 50+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 131.796 secs (3978008 bytes/sec)
Ah, thanks. I was just about to destroy my RAID-1 and see it that makes a difference :). So, the difference is pretty much the kernel locking: The fewer cores, the better the performance. But this still means that the softraid crypto performance is way below what openssl speed gives. I wonder if openssl (well, libressl) is just using a more efficient AES implementation, possibly one with inline assembly. Time to look at sources :). > For reference, the guest's raw disk read speed was: > > # dd if=/dev/rsd0c of=/dev/null bs=10m count=50 > 50+0 records in > 50+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 11.481 secs (45663843 bytes/sec) > # dd if=/dev/rsd0c of=/dev/null bs=10m count=500 > 500+0 records in > 500+0 records out > 5242880000 bytes transferred in 128.997 secs (40643390 bytes/sec) Yup, that matches mine. Which is still way below what the HD should be able to get. But, as said, with bsd.sp I get 80 MB/s, which seems closer to what it should be. Thanks for your help in debugging! -- Jonathan
