PS: You can take a peek at the raw data if you’re so inclined.Ĭan you please test again? I am seeing significant performance regressions on latest Ubuntu 22.04 kernels - 100% reproducible. Make what you want of it, but I'll keep encrypting my drives. Mind you, as with all synthetic tests giving you the worst figures, the real performance loss is much lower. And yes, even though GCM modes are performant, we still lose about 10-15% in writes and about 30% on reads when compared to no encryption at all. Unless you really need the ultimate cryptographic opacity a LUKS encryption brings, a native ZFS encryption using GCM is still a way to go. Yes, reads are slightly faster using standard XTS LUKS but writes are clearly favoring the native ZFS encryption. What will matter is that any GCM wins over LUKS. Yes, 128-bit variant is a bit faster than 256-bit one (as expected) but difference is small enough that it probably wont matter. And no, it doesn't suck less - it's just that all other encryption methods suck more.Īssuming our machine has a processor made in the last 5 or so years, the native ZFS GCM encryption becomes the clear winner.
Only once I turned off the AES support in BIOS does its inclusion make even a minimal sense as this actually improves its performance. Difference between CCM and any other encryption I tested is huge with CCM being 5-6 times slower.
Due to this change, numbers are not really comparable to ones from previous tests but that should be fine - our main interest is in the relative numbers.įirst of all, we can see that CCM encryption is not worth a dime if you have any AES-capable processor. It's a bit more consistent setup than the virtual machine I used before. These tests I did on Framework laptop with i5-1135G7 processor and 32GB of RAM. What did change is that I am not doing it on virtual machine anymore. Outside of really minor differences in the exact disk size, procedure didn't change. I won't go into the test procedure much since I explained it back when I did it the first time. CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C3538 2.With the new Ubuntu LTS release, it came time to repeat my ZFS encryption testing.zfs uses aesni ( perf top shows kernel aes_aesni_encrypt at 60% when running dd on encrypted datasets).between read and write test zpool export and import (drop caches).on zfs-2.0.1 L2ARC isn't used for sequential reads (which I tested).on zfs-0.8.6 L2ARC is dropped with export/import.In the end I updated to debian testing (bullseye) to confirm with ZFS 2.0.1-2 (last test), which has the same problem. I've performed most tests with debian stable (buster) and ZFS 0.8.6-1. This document only covers the kernel-level portion. Note: fscrypt in this document refers to the kernel-level portion, implemented in fs/crypto/, as opposed to the userspace tool fscrypt. It shouldn't be a CPU throughput problem, as both cryptsetup and Openssl reach very high speeds during benchmarks. fscrypt is a library which filesystems can hook into to support transparent encryption of files and directories. ZFS native encryption is very slow compared to non-encrypted datasets and ZFS on LUKS.