Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:57:59 + (UTC) Shannon Mess via Gnupg-users wrote: > Can someone please remove my email address from this group! This has > nothing to do with me! Send an email to gnupg-users-requ...@gnupg.org?subject=unsubscribe if you're not interested in emails from this mailing list. -- Current PGP KeyID: 11ADE4393600C1BDFFCBC0A598DE15942B08CA00 https://blueselene.com/pgp-archive/11ADE4393600C1BDFFCBC0A598DE15942B08CA00/key.pub For up-to-date information on my crypto keys, see https://blueselene.com/crypto.html pgpRdcW24NxDE.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
Can someone please remove my email address from this group! This has nothing to do with me! Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, January 17, 2023, 5:10 AM, Andre Heinecke via Gnupg-users wrote: Hi, On Sunday 15 January 2023 10:52:23 CET Christoph Klassen wrote: > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > didn't need to create an output file. Yes that is expected. Gpg encrypt and decrypt with AES should be mostly IO Bound as with AES-NI instructions it is really fast in the CPU. So not writing the output to disk will result in faster operations. And one of the biggest differences you get is when you encrypt / decrypt on a faster disk. Another big difference what you will see in the perfomance of GnuPG is if you use -z 0 which disables compression. Currently GnuPG on the command line disables compression when the input file name already looks compressed depending on the file name. We want to improve that, especially since Kleopatra hands the filename only in a way that is not used in that compression calculation. E.g. Adding Media data formats there might already help in a lot of use cases. For uncompressable output, like random data, this will make the largest difference. You can put "compress-level 0" into your gpg.conf to cause Kleopatra to also use that. That issue is: https://dev.gnupg.org/T6332 If you could do a run of your tests and comment in that issue with the results that would be helpful. It does not surprise me that Kleopatra is much slower. Due to our Architecture Kleopatra passes Data, through GPGME directly to GnuPG. This results in additional overhead but gives us more flexibility what kind of data we encrypt / decrypt. E.g. a mail or something that is not even written on the File system. For some parts we want to change that. Most notably Ingo is currently working on Gpgtar. Gpgtar can nowadays directly encrypt / decrypt so there is no need to pipe the input / output of GnuPG to or from GpgTar. Using GpgTar directly should help a lot when working with larger Archives. https://dev.gnupg.org/ T5478 We also already increased the buffer size in GPGME to reduce the number of callbacks we do internally but there can be more optimization there. Currently our recommendation for Large Data is to use the command line directly, which will always be fastest as there is no overhead. > Did someone of you also try to en-/decrypt larger files? Maybe even > files that are larger than 1 TB? It would be really nice to know how > long GnuPG and Gpg4win are busy with such large files. I think my largest tests were around 40GB. But I don't have the numbers anymore, the testing I did there was mostly because there were reports that Kleopatra crashes on such large files. Maybe you can open a ticket for this with a reference to https:// dev.gnupg.org/T5478 about performance problems when decrypting / encrypting large files (In contrast to archives.) Best Regards, Andre P.S. we are currently also looking at the startup / initial keycache building time of Kleopatra. This might also be intresting for those looking at Kleo performance. https://dev.gnupg.org/T6259 -- GnuPG.com - a brand of g10 Code, the GnuPG experts. g10 Code GmbH, Erkrath/Germany, AG Wuppertal HRB14459 GF Werner Koch, USt-Id DE215605608, www.g10code.com. GnuPG e.V., Rochusstr. 44, D-40479 Düsseldorf. VR 11482 Düsseldorf Vorstand: W.Koch, B.Reiter, A.Heinecke Mail: bo...@gnupg.org Finanzamt D-Altstadt, St-Nr: 103/5923/1779. Tel: +49-211-28010702___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
Thanks a lot for your reply Andre! On 17.01.23 13:08, Andre Heinecke wrote: Another big difference what you will see in the perfomance of GnuPG is if you use -z 0 which disables compression. I tried that with the 10GB file and, indeed, it was much faster. The encryption took only 51 seconds (with compression it was: 6 min. 21 sec.). -- Christoph Klassen | https://intevation.de Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
switching off compression (was: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win))
Am Dienstag 17 Januar 2023 13:08:18 schrieb Andre Heinecke via Gnupg-users: > Another big difference what you will see in the perfomance of GnuPG is if > you use -z 0 which disables compression. According to the GnuPG documentation (2.4.0) https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/GPG-Configuration-Options.html#index-compress_002dlevel '-z 0' is equivalent to the following long options '--compress-level 0 --bzip2-compress-level 0' yes, both have to be given. > You can put "compress-level 0" into > your gpg.conf to cause Kleopatra to also use that. Would not be enough to disable bip2 encryption (according to the documentation). Looking at https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/GPG-Esoteric-Options.html#index-compress_002dalgo what shall work with just one option is `compress-algo uncompressed` Best, Bernhard -- https://intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3 Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998 Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
Hi, On Sunday 15 January 2023 10:52:23 CET Christoph Klassen wrote: > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > didn't need to create an output file. Yes that is expected. Gpg encrypt and decrypt with AES should be mostly IO Bound as with AES-NI instructions it is really fast in the CPU. So not writing the output to disk will result in faster operations. And one of the biggest differences you get is when you encrypt / decrypt on a faster disk. Another big difference what you will see in the perfomance of GnuPG is if you use -z 0 which disables compression. Currently GnuPG on the command line disables compression when the input file name already looks compressed depending on the file name. We want to improve that, especially since Kleopatra hands the filename only in a way that is not used in that compression calculation. E.g. Adding Media data formats there might already help in a lot of use cases. For uncompressable output, like random data, this will make the largest difference. You can put "compress-level 0" into your gpg.conf to cause Kleopatra to also use that. That issue is: https://dev.gnupg.org/T6332 If you could do a run of your tests and comment in that issue with the results that would be helpful. It does not surprise me that Kleopatra is much slower. Due to our Architecture Kleopatra passes Data, through GPGME directly to GnuPG. This results in additional overhead but gives us more flexibility what kind of data we encrypt / decrypt. E.g. a mail or something that is not even written on the File system. For some parts we want to change that. Most notably Ingo is currently working on Gpgtar. Gpgtar can nowadays directly encrypt / decrypt so there is no need to pipe the input / output of GnuPG to or from GpgTar. Using GpgTar directly should help a lot when working with larger Archives. https://dev.gnupg.org/ T5478 We also already increased the buffer size in GPGME to reduce the number of callbacks we do internally but there can be more optimization there. Currently our recommendation for Large Data is to use the command line directly, which will always be fastest as there is no overhead. > Did someone of you also try to en-/decrypt larger files? Maybe even > files that are larger than 1 TB? It would be really nice to know how > long GnuPG and Gpg4win are busy with such large files. I think my largest tests were around 40GB. But I don't have the numbers anymore, the testing I did there was mostly because there were reports that Kleopatra crashes on such large files. Maybe you can open a ticket for this with a reference to https:// dev.gnupg.org/T5478 about performance problems when decrypting / encrypting large files (In contrast to archives.) Best Regards, Andre P.S. we are currently also looking at the startup / initial keycache building time of Kleopatra. This might also be intresting for those looking at Kleo performance. https://dev.gnupg.org/T6259 -- GnuPG.com - a brand of g10 Code, the GnuPG experts. g10 Code GmbH, Erkrath/Germany, AG Wuppertal HRB14459 GF Werner Koch, USt-Id DE215605608, www.g10code.com. GnuPG e.V., Rochusstr. 44, D-40479 Düsseldorf. VR 11482 Düsseldorf Vorstand: W.Koch, B.Reiter, A.HeineckeMail: bo...@gnupg.org Finanzamt D-Altstadt, St-Nr: 103/5923/1779. Tel: +49-211-28010702 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:47, Christoph Klassen said: > For some reason in that test gpg didn't output anything or at least > the PowerShell didn't show anything. Powershell and stdout and stderr are a bit problematic. I can't remember the details so I usually stick to cmd.exe or run tools directly via ssh from a Unix shell. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. - A. Einstein openpgp-digital-signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
Thanks for your replies! On 15.01.23 16:14, Ming Kuang wrote: gpg --decrypt test_file.gpg without output file will print all the decrypted contents on the screen, which may be the reason why it takes so long. For some reason in that test gpg didn't output anything or at least the PowerShell didn't show anything. On 15.01.23 17:03, Werner Koch wrote: > BTW, Do not use gpg4win 4.0.3 - it has a known vulnerability. Use > gpg4win 4.1.0. This will also change the numbers because we improved > some things in gpg. Don't worry, the system is mostly offline ;-) When I will give it access to the internet again I will update Gpg4win. Anyway, great to hear that the current version is faster than 4.0.3. On 16.01.23 02:01, Ángel wrote: > For any test like this where you are not going to process the output > (e.g. to compare it) I would recommend writing into the null device > (/dev/null in *nix, nul in Windows). I wanted to create an output file because I wanted to see how GnuPG would behave in a real scenario :) > Also, when measuring encryption make sure it is not trying to use > compression (based on the preferences of your test key). The time spent > by the compressor on your uncompressible files would be just an > unneeded source of variation. Thanks for the hint! I will try it with disabled compression. With regards, Christoph -- Christoph Klassen | https://intevation.de Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On Monday, January 16, 2023 9:02 AM, ángel wrote: > On 2023-01-15 at 23:14 +0800, Ming Kuang via Gnupg-users wrote: > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 5:52 PM, Christoph Klassen wrote: > > > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > > > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > > > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > > > didn't need to create an output file. > > > > As far as I know, outputting text to the screen (like printf) is a very time > > consuming operation, it will block you until all printing is complete. > > > > gpg --decrypt test_file.gpg without output file will print all the decrypted > > contents on the screen, which may be the reason why it takes so long. > > Generally speaking, I wouldn't consider printing to the screen "very > expensive" (i.e. print if you need to), but if you need to output a lot > of text, the other side (the terminal) will need to process and draw it > into the screen (think on it as a pipe), which will be slow with lots > of text or extremely long lines. Moreover, in Windows it will be > processed to convert LF into CRLF, and then moved into the Terminal > subsystem. You are right, my reply might be a bit misleading, what really takes time is the operation of drawing content to the terminal, if the application tries to print but you don't let it display on the screen (e.g. redirecting output to a file or /dev/null), the time consumption will not be a problem. openpgp-digital-signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 10:52, Christoph Klassen said: > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > didn't need to create an output file. Because you sent the output the the console. This is of course slow. BTW, Do not use gpg4win 4.0.3 - it has a known vulnerability. Use gpg4win 4.1.0. This will also change the numbers because we improved some things in gpg. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. - A. Einstein openpgp-digital-signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On 2023-01-15 at 23:14 +0800, Ming Kuang via Gnupg-users wrote: > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 5:52 PM, Christoph Klassen wrote: > > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > > didn't need to create an output file. > > As far as I know, outputting text to the screen (like printf) is a very time > consuming operation, it will block you until all printing is complete. > > gpg --decrypt test_file.gpg without output file will print all the decrypted > contents on the screen, which may be the reason why it takes so long. Generally speaking, I wouldn't consider printing to the screen "very expensive" (i.e. print if you need to), but if you need to output a lot of text, the other side (the terminal) will need to process and draw it into the screen (think on it as a pipe), which will be slow with lots of text or extremely long lines. Moreover, in Windows it will be processed to convert LF into CRLF, and then moved into the Terminal subsystem. For any test like this where you are not going to process the output (e.g. to compare it) I would recommend writing into the null device (/dev/null in *nix, nul in Windows). Also, when measuring encryption make sure it is not trying to use compression (based on the preferences of your test key). The time spent by the compressor on your uncompressible files would be just an unneeded source of variation. Regards ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 5:52 PM, Christoph Klassen wrote: > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > didn't need to create an output file. As far as I know, outputting text to the screen (like printf) is a very time consuming operation, it will block you until all printing is complete. gpg --decrypt test_file.gpg without output file will print all the decrypted contents on the screen, which may be the reason why it takes so long. openpgp-digital-signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
En-/Decryption speed for large files (GnuPG and Gpg4win)
Hello, I was testing the encryption and decryption with "pure" GnuPG and Gpg4win to compare the speed of them. What I also wanted to find out it how long it takes to en-/decrypt larger files. Some details of the environment for the test: * Windows 10 * Gpg4win 4.0.3 * CPU: Intel i5-6500 @3,20 GHz * RAM: 16 GB * Storage: SSD To test the speed I created files of different sizes with a Python script where I used the method os.urandom() to fill the files. GnuPG was running in the PowerShell and I measured the time by using the command "Measure-Command". To measure the time that Gpg4win needed I used a stopwatch. First part of the test was the encryption of the files. To test GnuPG I used the command "gpg -r test --encrypt ./test_file". To encrypt with Gpg4win I used the entry "Encrypt" of the GpgEX context menu in the file explorer. Results of encryption: Size | GnuPG| Gpg4win 1GB |38 sec. | 1 min. 8 sec. 1GB |37 sec. | 1 min. 7 sec. 2GB | 1 min. 14 sec. | 2 min. 15 sec. 2GB | 1 min. 14 sec. | 2 min. 14 sec. 5GB | 3 min. 10 sec. | 6 min. 10 sec. 5GB | 3 min. 6 sec.| 5 min. 34 sec. 10GB | 6 min. 28 sec. | 11 min. 21 sec. 10GB | 6 min. 21 sec. | 11 min. 6 sec. To decrypt the files I used the entry "Decrypt" of the GpgEX context menu in the file explorer for Gpg4win and for GnuPG I used the command "gpg --output test_file --decrypt test_file.gpg". Results of decryption: Size | GnuPG| Gpg4win 1GB |3 sec.|36 sec. 1GB |3 sec.|34 sec. 2GB |10 sec. | 1 min. 13 sec. 2GB |7 sec.| 1 min. 12 sec. 5GB |22 sec. | 3 min. 1 sec. 5GB |19 sec. | 3 min. 2 sec. 10GB | 1 min. 3 sec.| 5 min. 52 sec. 10GB | 1 min. 7 sec.| 6 min. 5 sec. One insight of this test is that Gpg4win needs around two times longer for encryption. For decryption the difference is much bigger. When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG didn't need to create an output file. Did someone of you also try to en-/decrypt larger files? Maybe even files that are larger than 1 TB? It would be really nice to know how long GnuPG and Gpg4win are busy with such large files. With regards, Christoph -- Christoph Klassen | https://www.intevation.de/ Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HRB 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
