how badly does encrypting the root file system crush my performance?
Andrew Farris
lordmorgul at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 20:42:13 UTC 2008
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alan wrote:
>
>>> On 2/25/08, Alan <alan at clueserver.org> wrote:
>>>> > the context here might make this question inappropriate, but i
>>>> > installed f9 alpha inside virtualbox in two different ways, with only
>>>> > one difference -- whether the all-encompassing root file system was
>>>> > encrypted or not.
>>>> >
>>>> > within virtualbox, the encrypted VM is *waaaaay* slower than the
>>>> > unencrypted one. should i expect the same performance difference
>>>> with
>>>> > regular hard disk installs? just curious. i expected a difference
>>>> > but this is *hugely* noticeable and almost unusable.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like an artifact of virtualbox. I am using full disk
>>>> encryption on F9 alpha and I am seeing little, if any, slowdown. Maybe
>>>> 64-bit helps.
>>> Same here, on i686.
>> As a side note, I have run VMWare with and without the hardware
>> virtualization. It DOES make a difference. I do not know if
>> VirtualBox uses the hardware virtualization. If it does not, it
>> should.
>
> that may be, but the difference here has nothing to do with whether
> the H/W virtualization is being used or not, it's whether encryption
> is being used or not. in both cases, the status of the H/W
> virtualization is going to be the same.
True, but the 'cost' or performance impact of the encryption will be much higher
without the hardware virtualization, essentially making it a bigger problem if
it already is impacting performance.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list