Mention PERFORMANCE.md in README.md

This commit is contained in:
Jakob Unterwurzacher 2014-12-08 19:37:30 +01:00
parent 9a64ff97c5
commit 0a274fe77f

View File

@ -33,19 +33,30 @@ depends upon community interest. In order to make it easier for anyone to
contribute, it is moving a new home on Github. So if you're interested in contribute, it is moving a new home on Github. So if you're interested in
EncFS, please dive in! EncFS, please dive in!
EncFS still has a few unique features that may be interesing to you: ## Unique Features
* `--reverse` mode: Provides an encrypted view of an unencrypted folder. EncFS has a few features still not found anywhere else (as of Dec 2014)
This enables encrypted remote backups using standard tools like that may be interesing to you:
rsync.
* EncFS is typically faster than ecryptfs for stat()-heavy workloads ### Reverse mode
when the backing device is a classical hard disk.
This is because ecryptfs has to to read each file header to determine `encfs --reverse` provides an encrypted view of an unencrypted folder.
the file size - EncFS does not. This is one additional seek for each This enables encrypted remote backups using standard tools like rsync.
stat. On SSDs that have virtually no seek time, that difference may
disappear. ### Fast on classical HDDs
* EncFS works on network file systems (NFS, CIFS...), while ecryptfs
is known to still have [problems][1]. EncFS is typically *much* faster than ecryptfs for stat()-heavy workloads
when the backing device is a classical hard disk.
This is because ecryptfs has to to read each file header to determine
the file size - EncFS does not. This is one additional seek for each
stat.
See [PERFORMANCE.md](PERFORMANCE.md) for detailed benchmarks on
HDD, SSD and ramdisk.
### Works on top of network filesystems
EncFS works on network file systems (NFS, CIFS...), while ecryptfs
is known to still have [problems][1].
## GitHub Transition ## GitHub Transition