Thank you for your numbers, now I know what to expect when I get my new machine, since our system specs look identical.
So basically on this system: unencrypted ZFS read: ~70 MB/s per disk 128bit Blowfish GELI/ZFS write: 35 MB/s per disk 128bit Blowfish GELI/ZFS read: 24 MB/s per disk I am curious what part of GELI is so inefficient to cause such a dramatic slowdown. In comparison, my home desktop is a C2D E6600 2,4 Ghz, 4GB RAM, Intel DP35DP, 1 x 1,5TB Seagate Barracuda - Windows Vista x64 SP1 Read/Write on an unencrypted NTFS partition: ~85 MB/s Read/Write on a Truecrypt AES-encrypted NTFS partition: ~65 MB/s As you can see, the performance drop is noticeable, but not anywhere nearly as dramatic. - Dan Naumov > I have a zpool mirror on top of two 128bit GELI blowfish devices with > Sectorsize 4096, my system is a D945GCLF2 with 2GB RAM and a Intel Arom > 330 1.6 Ghz dualcore. The two disks are a WDC WD10EADS and a WD10EACS > (5400rpm). The system is running 8.0-CURRENT amd64. I have set > kern.geom.eli.threads=3. > > This is far from a real benchmarks but: > > Using dd with bs=4m I get 35 MByte/s writing to the mirror (writing 35 > MByte/s to each disk) and 48 MByte/s reading from the mirror (reading > with 24 MByte/s from each disk). > > My experience is that ZFS is not much of an overhead and will not > degrade the performance as much as the encryption, so GELI is the > limiting factor. Using ZFS without GELI on this system gives way higher > read and write numbers, like reading with 70 MByte/s per disk etc. > > greetings, > philipp _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
