| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
About ::
TODO ::
Blog ::
RSS ::
Old blog ::
Projects ::
GIT ::
Gallery ::
Notes
Mon, 07 Jul 2008
POHMELFS crypto processing performance.
If you expected a miracle, it did not happen, so I just present a picture, where
I compared plain async in-kernel NFS server (no encryption, no checksumming)
versus POHMELFS, which performed SHA1 hashing and AES-128-CBC encryption of the whole
data channel.
Block size used in iozone test is 8KB, filesize - 8GB, 1GB of RAM.
/devel/fs :: Link / Comments (4)
Piotr K. K. Michaloski wrote at 2008-07-07 18:49:
POHMELFS is the most promising network file system out there. When it will be ready for users? Do you want to push it into mainline kernel?
Zbr wrote at 2008-07-07 22:38:
>Piotr I do not know, maybe its time to push it upstream, but I do not want to bother with linux kernel politics. We will see soon.
>Adam I used likely the most common setup which can be installed. Sure one can use different and less CPU-hungry algorithms. I also do not like Dr. Bernstein programming and/or his communication mode, although he is great mathematician for sure.
Piotr K. K. Michaloski wrote at 2008-07-07 23:34:
"but I do not want to bother with linux kernel politics"
I understand your reluctance for pushing your code upstream - how many of your projects burned down in lkml flames? (kevent? distributed storage?)
Please solve this captcha to be allowed to post (need to reload in a minute): 17 * 77
Comments are closed for this story.
Adam Langley wrote at 2008-07-07 18:34: