Yes, I did exactly the same for my encrypted backups, only I chose
Twofish due to speed advantage (TW256 - 16.2 mbps vs. AES256 - 12.6
mbps). With compression enabled - encryption speed was within 0.5 mbps
across all ciphers at around 12 mbps.
I did switch over to public key encryption last month.
Some benches
(this is on single Xeon 2.8 EM64T, 1 Gig RAM with RAID5 running Gentoo
in two separate 64 and 32 bit installs)
GnuPG 1.4.2 Benchmarks (symmetric encryption, no compress)
512 MB backup file
GnuPG-64 | GnuPG-32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
twofish (256) 33.5s (15.3 mbps) | 32.2s (15.9 mbps)
aes (128) 33.3s (15.4 mbps) | 34.5s (14.8 mbps)
aes192 35.0s (14.6 mbps) | 33.8s (15.1 mbps)
aes256 37.5s (13.7 mbps) | 36.8s (13.9 mbps)
blowfish 52.3s (9.8 mbps) | 52.7s (9.7 mbps)
CAST5 26.9s (19.0 mbps) | 25.0s (20.5 mbps)
3DES 48.3s (10.6 mbps) | 47.0s (10.9 mbps)
4.0 Gig backup file
GnuPG-64 | GnuPG-32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
twofish (256) 253s (16.2 mbps) | 257s (15.9 mbps)
aes (128) 310s (13.2 mbps) | 278s (14.7 mbps)
aes192 318s (12.8 mbps) | 288s (14.2 mbps)
aes256 325s (12.6 mbps) | 311s(13.2 mbps)
OpenSSL 0.9.7-r2 Benchmarks (probably for another topic - it blows GnuPG
out of the water in terms of speed)
512MB backup file
OpenSSL-64 | OpenSSL-32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
aes (128) 14.0s (36.6 mbps) | 17.9s (28.6 mbps)
aes192 15.1s (33.9 mbps) | 19.2s (26.7 mbps)
aes256 16.8s (30.5 mbps) | 18.0s (28.4 mbps)
blowfish 13.3s (38.5 mbps) | 13.0s (39.4 mbps)
CAST5 20.5s (25.0 mbps) | 16.8s (30.5 mbps)
3DES 39.5s (13.0 mbps) | 32.2s (15.9 mbps)
4.0 Gig backup file
OpenSSL-64 | OpenSSL-32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aes (128) 164s (25.0 mbps) | 163s(25.1 mbps)
aes192 166s (33.9 mbps) | 168s(24.4 mbps)
aes256 173s (23.5 mbps) | 179s (22.9 mbps)
David Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:49:40PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
>
>> Francesco Turco wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> i have disabled compression becouse files i have to encrypt are already
>>> compressed, and compression takes much more time then encryption.
>>>
>>> do you think it is a good choice?
>>>
>>>
>> IIRC GnuPG will detect if data is compressed before it tries to compress
>> it; if so, it won't try to.
>>
>
> This is correct. Of course, it's possible that GnuPG doesn't
> recognize a particular kind of compression. If I recall, it looks for
> bzip, gzip, and zip.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
