Jivin da xiao lays it down ...
> when I test ocf,I found this strange problem.I use:
> linux-2.6.26.8
> crypto-tools-20080917
> ocf-linux-20080917
> openswan-2.6.16
>
> #
> # OCF Configuration
> #
> CONFIG_OCF_OCF=y
> CONFIG_OCF_RANDOMHARVEST=y
> CONFIG_OCF_CRYPTODEV=y
> CONFIG_OCF_CRYPTOSOFT=y
>
> to run the test,I get the result:
> ./cryptotest -a null 256 8192
> 0.067 sec, 512 null crypts, 8192 bytes, 63046643 byte/sec,
> 481.0 Mb/sec
> ./cryptotest -a aes 256 8192
> 0.036 sec, 512 aes crypts, 8192 bytes, 117038368 byte/sec,
> 892.9 Mb/sec
> ./cryptotest -a md5 256 8192
> 0.008 sec, 256 md5 crypts, 8192 bytes, 272215992 byte/sec,
> 2076.8 Mb/sec
> ./cryptotest -a des 256 8192
> 0.078 sec, 512 des crypts, 8192 bytes, 53531550 byte/sec,
> 408.4 Mb/sec
> ./cryptotest -a 3des 256 8192
> 0.225 sec, 512 3des crypts, 8192 bytes, 18631166 byte/sec,
> 142.1 Mb/sec
> ./cryptotest -a sha1 256 8192
> 0.023 sec, 256 sha1 crypts, 8192 bytes, 90045170 byte/sec,
> 687.0 Mb/sec
>
> why aes and md5 are so faster than null algorithm?
Beats me :-)
The null implementation in the kernel uses memcpy(src,dst,len), which "may"
be slower than an optimised alg.
Could be an accounting bug in cryptotest.
I see the same thing here on a mips board so at least it's consistent :-)
Other than that I have no ideas, I would have tried it with "openssl speed"
but it doesn't support NULL,
Cheers,
Davidm
--
David McCullough, dav...@se..., Ph:+61 734352815
McAfee - SnapGear http://www.snapgear.com http://www.uCdot.org
|
