On 200707091624, Russell Coker wrote: > On Monday 02 July 2007 11:35, Anders Breindahl <skrewz@skrewz.dk> wrote: > > (However, on a reasonably recent system, you still will be > > bottlenecked by Fast Ethernet at 100Mb/s). > > Where "reasonably fast" means faster than a 3GHz P4. A 3GHz P4 system I was > working on recently appeared to be limited to 4MB/s, if it wasn't for the > fact that the machine is about to be decommissioned then I would probably > investigate this further as the performance is lower than expected. Funny. I get 4 MB/s of AES256 on an 850MHz P3. And >11MB/s on a 3500+ AMD Sempron. And well above that when using VIA Padlock on another system. Are you certain that you're not bottlenecked by some other problem? > > However, if you should choose to encrypt only, say /home, you'd need to > > make sure that data won't ``sieve'' onto the unencrypted parts of the > > system, such as /tmp or swap space. > > True. But the advantage to encrypting only some partitions is that you can > get better performance for non-secret data. If you're stuck with 4MB/s as transfer speed, you could consider security trade-offs for performance. But in a faster scenario, I wouldn't opt for it. Regards, skrewz.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature