mirror of
https://github.com/vgough/encfs.git
synced 2024-12-18 04:31:16 +01:00
104 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
104 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
EncFS Performance
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
EncFS runs in user-space while eCryptfs runs in the kernel.
|
|
This is why it is often assumed that eCryptfs is faster than EncFS.
|
|
To compare the actual performance of EncFS and eCryptfs on top of
|
|
different backing disks, the EncFS test suite contains an automated
|
|
performance test - [benchmark.pl](tests/benchmark.pl).
|
|
|
|
performance.pl takes care of setting up EncFS and eCryptfs mounts,
|
|
clearing caches and syncing disks between the tests, and also to unmount
|
|
and clean up everything in the end.
|
|
|
|
It performance the following tests:
|
|
|
|
* stream_write: Write 100MB of zeros in 4KB blocks
|
|
* extract: Extract the [linux-3.0.tar.gz archive](https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/)
|
|
* du: Disk space used after extraction, in megabytes
|
|
* rsync: Do an "rsync -an" of the extracted files.
|
|
This simulates an rsync to a destination that is
|
|
(almost) up-to-date. The workload consists mostly
|
|
of stat() calls.
|
|
* delete: Recursively delete the extracted files
|
|
|
|
For EncFS, the [default options](tests/benchmark.pl#L47) are used.
|
|
This means:
|
|
|
|
* AES with 192 bit key
|
|
* Filename encryption
|
|
|
|
For eCryptfs, the [options used](tests/mount-ecryptfs.expect) are
|
|
|
|
* AES with 128 bit key
|
|
* Filename encryption
|
|
|
|
For all the details, take a look at [benchmark.pl](tests/benchmark.pl) .
|
|
|
|
Results
|
|
-------
|
|
The performance of an overlay filesystem depends a lot on the performance
|
|
of the backing disk. This is why I have tested three different kinds of
|
|
disk:
|
|
|
|
* Classic HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, model ST3250824AS
|
|
* Modern SSD: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB
|
|
* Ramdisk: tmpfs mounted on /tmp
|
|
|
|
All tests are performed on kernel 3.16.3, 64 bit, on an Intel Pentium
|
|
G630 (Sandy Bridge, 2 x 2.7GHz).
|
|
|
|
If you want to replicate the test, just run
|
|
|
|
sudo tests/benchmark.pl /path/to/test/directory
|
|
|
|
(the test must be run as root as normal users cannot mount ecryptfs or
|
|
clear the caches)
|
|
|
|
* HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.9
|
|
|
|
Test | EncFS | eCryptfs | EncFS advantage
|
|
----------------|-------------:|-------------:|---------------:
|
|
stream_write | 32 MiB/s | 38 MiB/s | 0.84
|
|
extract | 28744 ms | 30027 ms | 1.04
|
|
du | 495 MB | 784 MB | 1.58
|
|
rsync | 3319 ms | 62486 ms | 18.83
|
|
delete | 6462 ms | 74652 ms | 11.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
* SSD: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB
|
|
|
|
Test | EncFS | eCryptfs | EncFS advantage
|
|
----------------|-------------:|-------------:|---------------:
|
|
stream_write | 53 MiB/s | 75 MiB/s | 0.71
|
|
extract | 26129 ms | 9692 ms | 0.37
|
|
du | 495 MB | 784 MB | 1.58
|
|
rsync | 2725 ms | 8210 ms | 3.01
|
|
delete | 5444 ms | 9130 ms | 1.68
|
|
|
|
* Ramdisk: tmpfs
|
|
|
|
Test | EncFS | eCryptfs | EncFS advantage
|
|
----------------|-------------:|-------------:|---------------:
|
|
stream_write | 82 MiB/s | 111 MiB/s | 0.74
|
|
extract | 22393 ms | 8117 ms | 0.36
|
|
du | 485 MB | 773 MB | 1.59
|
|
rsync | 1931 ms | 740 ms | 0.38
|
|
delete | 4346 ms | 907 ms | 0.21
|
|
|
|
Interpretation
|
|
--------------
|
|
eCryptfs uses a large per-file header (8 KB) which is a big disadvantage
|
|
on classic HDDs. For stat()-heavy operations on HDDs, EncFS is 18x faster.
|
|
|
|
EncFS stores small files much more efficiently, which is why it consitently
|
|
uses less space than eCryptfs: zero-size files take no space at all,
|
|
other files get a 8-byte header. Because the filesystem allocates space
|
|
in 4KB blocks, the actually used disk space must be rounded up to 4096.
|
|
|
|
plaintext size | EncFS raw | EncFS du | eCryptfs raw | eCryptfs du
|
|
--------------:|----------:|---------:|-------------:|------------:
|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 8192 | 8192
|
|
1 | 9 | 4096 | 12288 | 12288
|
|
1024 | 1032 | 4096 | 12288 | 12288
|