Actually, the encryption isn't bad from a performance perspective. In our testing, enabling encryption only incurred a 5-10% perfromance penalty.
The real issues come from the fact that encrypted data doesn't compress, so if you encrypt on the client without using client compression, your tape useage will likely increase. And if you encrypt AND compress on the client, then you get hit with a significant client performance penalty...but it's the compression that kills you, not the encryption. But you're right...doing it on the drive is usually a much better way to go. -Lloyd On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:13:39 -0500 Wanda Prather <wprat...@jasi.com> wrote: > Encryption with the client is very CPU intensive, both on backup and on > restore. > > If you have LTO4 or 3592 tape, or STK tape drives that encrypt, it is far, > far better to do it in the hardware. > > W > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Moyer, Joni M <joni.mo...@highmark.com>wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I am beginning the process of deciding upon a method of encryption. I was > > just wondering if anyone utilizes TSM to encrypt data? It seems to be quite > > a cumbersome method of encryption... > > > > I was also wondering if anyone was using hardware encryption in their > > environments? And what type of set up do you have? > > > > Thanks in advance!!!! > > > > Joni Moyer > > Storage Administrator III > > (717)302-9966 > > joni.mo...@highmark.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended > > solely for use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If > > you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately > > and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not > > keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail without the author's > > prior permission. The views expressed in this e-mail message do not > > necessarily represent the views of Highmark Inc., its subsidiaries, or > > affiliates. > >
