Hi, On Sunday 15 January 2023 10:52:23 CET Christoph Klassen wrote: > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8 > minutes and 47 seconds. I was wondering why it took longer when GnuPG > didn't need to create an output file.
Yes that is expected. Gpg encrypt and decrypt with AES should be mostly IO Bound as with AES-NI instructions it is really fast in the CPU. So not writing the output to disk will result in faster operations. And one of the biggest differences you get is when you encrypt / decrypt on a faster disk. Another big difference what you will see in the perfomance of GnuPG is if you use -z 0 which disables compression. Currently GnuPG on the command line disables compression when the input file name already looks compressed depending on the file name. We want to improve that, especially since Kleopatra hands the filename only in a way that is not used in that compression calculation. E.g. Adding Media data formats there might already help in a lot of use cases. For uncompressable output, like random data, this will make the largest difference. You can put "compress-level 0" into your gpg.conf to cause Kleopatra to also use that. That issue is: https://dev.gnupg.org/T6332 If you could do a run of your tests and comment in that issue with the results that would be helpful. It does not surprise me that Kleopatra is much slower. Due to our Architecture Kleopatra passes Data, through GPGME directly to GnuPG. This results in additional overhead but gives us more flexibility what kind of data we encrypt / decrypt. E.g. a mail or something that is not even written on the File system. For some parts we want to change that. Most notably Ingo is currently working on Gpgtar. Gpgtar can nowadays directly encrypt / decrypt so there is no need to pipe the input / output of GnuPG to or from GpgTar. Using GpgTar directly should help a lot when working with larger Archives. https://dev.gnupg.org/ T5478 We also already increased the buffer size in GPGME to reduce the number of callbacks we do internally but there can be more optimization there. Currently our recommendation for Large Data is to use the command line directly, which will always be fastest as there is no overhead. > Did someone of you also try to en-/decrypt larger files? Maybe even > files that are larger than 1 TB? It would be really nice to know how > long GnuPG and Gpg4win are busy with such large files. I think my largest tests were around 40GB. But I don't have the numbers anymore, the testing I did there was mostly because there were reports that Kleopatra crashes on such large files. Maybe you can open a ticket for this with a reference to https:// dev.gnupg.org/T5478 about performance problems when decrypting / encrypting large files (In contrast to archives.) Best Regards, Andre P.S. we are currently also looking at the startup / initial keycache building time of Kleopatra. This might also be intresting for those looking at Kleo performance. https://dev.gnupg.org/T6259 -- GnuPG.com - a brand of g10 Code, the GnuPG experts. g10 Code GmbH, Erkrath/Germany, AG Wuppertal HRB14459 GF Werner Koch, USt-Id DE215605608, www.g10code.com. GnuPG e.V., Rochusstr. 44, D-40479 Düsseldorf. VR 11482 Düsseldorf Vorstand: W.Koch, B.Reiter, A.Heinecke Mail: bo...@gnupg.org Finanzamt D-Altstadt, St-Nr: 103/5923/1779. Tel: +49-211-28010702
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
