[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Asynchronous crypto layer.

To: johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Asynchronous crypto layer.
From: Michal Ludvig <mludvig@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:28:34 +0200
Cc: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, cryptoapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041029193720.53235ec3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SuSE CR, s.r.o.
References: <1099030958.4944.148.camel@uganda> <1099053738.1024.104.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041029180652.113f0f6e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099062483.1023.21.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041029193720.53235ec3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8a4) Gecko/20040927
Hash: SHA1

Evgeniy Polyakov told me that:
> On 29 Oct 2004 11:08:03 -0400 jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 10:06, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>>> I agree that multigigahertz box will beat my HIFN card, but I 
>>> doubt it can beat 1gghz VIA.
>> The VIA is an interesting one; but it would still be interesting to
>>  see comparisons. Actually I should say a good comparison will be 
>> with a dual opteron >= 2Ghz which i have no doubt will smoke a xeon
>> - all in s/ware.
> He-he, dual Opteron? It costs as 5 Via boards :)
> ok, I will follow this plan: I will create simple block device like 
> cryptoloop, it will be _really_ simple without any kind of 
> portability and/or stability (I hope it will be one day, at least it 
> took so for 2.4) and I will measure async vs sync.

Then I could give the numbers for dual (and quad-) Opteron as well ;-))

But make sure that your cryptodriver could take advantage of SMP!

> Then Michal can measure it's fcrypt driver also.

I'll have to port it to acrypto first. But I'll do so :-)

Michal Ludvig
- --
SUSE Labs                    mludvig@xxxxxxx
(+420) 296.542.396
Personal homepage
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>