lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RAID + LUKS + LVM performance
On 11.03.2010 13:08, Mathias Buren wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> (please cc me as I'm not subscribed)
>
> I've a friend who's going to set up a fileserver consisting of 8x 1.5TB
> HDDs, an 8-port PCI-E RAID card (Areca ARC-1220 @
> http://www.areca.com.tw/products/pcie.htm ) etc.
> The plan is create a RAID5 array spanning all the disks, then create 4
> partitions. These 4 partitions would be encrypted using LUKS (Twofish or
> AES256).
> These 4 encrypted partition would be set up in RAID0 using Linux' software
> (mdadm), then LVM would be used on top of that (one big PV, one big VG and
> a big LV or so).
>
> The reason for this is that kcryptd is not multithreaded (afaik). By having
> 4 encrypted partitions, then md0 on top of them, I'm forcing 4 kcryptd
> processes to run on all four cpu cores whenever something is written to the
> disks, which should improve (encryption) performance.
>
> Is this a good way of doing it, or is there a smarter way?

The setup you describe would only work with SSDs. HDDs would seek
themselves to death.

The problem is the RAID-0 over the 4 partitions. At that point you would
need, instead of the 4 partitions, something that is round-robin. So
that the mapping of the (physical) blocks from the upper to the lower
would be effectivly linear/unchanged.

AFAIK something like that is (currently) not possible.





Bis denn

--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-11 18:49    [W:0.070 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site