Celejar: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:58:28 +0100 >> >> A single core get's used 100% by the kworker thread. But actually it's >> not 20MB/s, but 25MB/s while reading (decrypting) and 35MB/s while >> writing (encrypting). I just tested it again. > > So does that mean that your wireless throughput with encryption enabled > is CPU-bound, and that you'd be getting better throughput with a more > powerful CPU (or without encryption)?
No. The numbers I posted were about disk encryption. They were just
meant to illustrate what throughput is possible with AES if it is done
by a comparably slow CPU (Atom D510, 1.66GHz).
With WPA2/AES you have significantly less throughput (typically <10%)
and, as far as I know, wifi encrpytion is done by the hardware and not
the host CPU. But even if it's done on the host CPU: my numbers show
that you really don't need to care about that very much, as long as your
system isn't older than, say, 6-8 years.
(Disclaimer: I am unsure whether WPA2 with AES actually performs the
same as LUKS using AES. But my guess is that it's not far off.)
J.
--
I am not scared of death but terrified of people in Tommy Hilfiger
sweatshirts.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
