| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn |
| From: | "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:01:14 -0500 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LEfga3NnGzCs9xt/YCaJ9o0X0h7BJ7WnXncVapE+JpU=; b=Zf2QXalomgm/HijOAJa81m5n/usvp5aAP4FLkNIzNs+kyA8v2fZ7fvB83aU1zU3QPr bEyvb0kz1xqDkX8g9s46w8rusVl42zUE1LGUzWoslBWqgqutyj0R95UIYO1MNeze/8WA P9bPUd7vNcVWXt1jMLqhY8pqWwI8s/O4g3+3h3uZdqNLHSS6CmVluVNQUM545D2JjtxN 9xZ0V18BZjyf9Z53M1omzTvZkBgN0RvzS1fnJmndGp2bhk9YR5pppzXp4OEKmovkeDHy cie4O7asXAeAq5+O7MhZ3mDcZKF0DP5EbKxIP9PtHO3m5GIoOQh4IiSUp6nN+hCSkPrf F6NQ== |
| In-reply-to: | <52B6AE4D.5020104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <52B102FF.8040404@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52B118A9.8080905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52B178AA.6040302@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52B2FE9E.50307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52B41B67.9030308@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52B439D1.3020205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131221053032.GA3220@dastard> <52B6AE4D.5020104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
On 12/22/2013 04:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > For the record, again, I've never used dm-crypt. I'm just trying to > work through the layers to identify the source of Kevin's problems. So > please don't clobber me too hard for going OT, or trying to speak > (somewhat) intelligently about something I'm just learning about... This stuff isn't easy. There are a lot of security-vs-speed tradeoffs, and kernel support varies by processor and architecture. Take this example from x86: # info from fdisk: /dev/sda5 8404992 10502143 1048576 83 Linux # cryptsetup status /dev/mapper/wCrypt /dev/mapper/wCrypt is active. type: LUKS1 cipher: aes-xts-essiv:sha256 keysize: 512 bits device: /dev/sda5 offset: 4096 sectors size: 2093056 sectors mode: read/write What this jibberish means from a speed standpoint is this: aes: had assembly speedups in the kernel; NIST approved; xts: almost as fast as cbc while being more secure; essiv: "plain" is faster, but essiv is more secure; sha256: it seemed like an ok hash; 512 bits: much slower than 256 or 128 bits, but hopefully more secure, fine for a small partition like this. A similar "cryptsetup status <cryptname>" from Kevin might help you benchmark things, and Kevin might explain his rationale without blowing his cover ;-) A `zcat /proc/config.gz` | grep CRYPTO` might help you see what kernel support he has as well. Dave's recent post about I/O latency with dm-crypt reads/writes might be the answer that you're seeking. I just wanted to put in my two cents. Good luck! Michael |
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] directory quota survey on xfs, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn, Kevin Richter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |