Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alan wrote:
>> On 2/25/08, Alan <alan(a)clueserver.org> wrote:
>>> > the context here might make this question inappropriate, but i
>>> > installed f9 alpha inside virtualbox in two different ways, with only
>>> > one difference -- whether the all-encompassing root file system was
>>> > encrypted or not.
>>> > within virtualbox, the encrypted VM is *waaaaay* slower than the
>>> > unencrypted one. should i expect the same performance difference
>>> > regular hard disk installs? just curious. i expected a difference
>>> > but this is *hugely* noticeable and almost unusable.
>>> That sounds like an artifact of virtualbox. I am using full disk
>>> encryption on F9 alpha and I am seeing little, if any, slowdown. Maybe
>>> 64-bit helps.
>> Same here, on i686.
> As a side note, I have run VMWare with and without the hardware
> virtualization. It DOES make a difference. I do not know if
> VirtualBox uses the hardware virtualization. If it does not, it
that may be, but the difference here has nothing to do with whether
the H/W virtualization is being used or not, it's whether encryption
is being used or not. in both cases, the status of the H/W
virtualization is going to be the same.
True, but the 'cost' or performance impact of the encryption will be much higher
without the hardware virtualization, essentially making it a bigger problem if
it already is impacting performance.
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul(a)gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer