|
From: Jon B. <jon...@la...> - 2004-06-16 17:08:48
|
Den 16. jun 2004, kl. 18:07, skrev David Haworth , David Haworth: >> a intel 3.06 GHz though not completely idle got: >> aes-128 cbc 30871.89k 31260.69k 31642.28k 31615.66k >> 31645.70k >> >> my powerbook 1.33Ghz got >> aes-128 cbc 38118.21k 41516.88k 41268.42k 40523.62k >> 41802.05k > > now that's interesting. the 1.3G g4 powerbook got a significantly > higher score than a 3G p4. I wonder why. bus speed is lower, altivec > perhaps? would openssl support that? i think it is altivec, but i am not sure, because that 3G P4 is our server, and other users probably used it while i was running the test. But a rerun just now here after work gives the same score, so i think it is the altivec that adds performance to the G4. >> This is interesting if you compare it to your G5, which is a dual and >> pr. cpu is about 35% >> faster than my single G4. However if you look at your results, they >> are just about 2.5 >> times faster. If you take the cpu speed factor, and the 2 cpus, that >> gives 1.35*2 = 2,7 > > well, 2.5 vs 2.7 seems fair enough, you rarely get twice the speed out > of a duallie. that difference in performance would seem to imply to me > that openssl scales very well over cpu's but that there is a little > overhead from whatever source (osx perhaps) to balance things over > both cpu's properly. certainly it would be interesting trying it on a > quad and 8 way box too, not that I have one to hand :) > > I don't think that any of the improvements in the g5 proc are likely > to make too much of a difference to openssl speeds though. there is no > need for >32bit addressing and crypto is perhaps not the best type of > program for long pipelines where branch prediction might cause a > bigger problem (I'm clutching at straws here, not sure) so I really > don't know. > > my g5 running only 1 thread gets this result > > aes-128-cbc 53196.23k 56806.46k 62308.81k 60952.53k > 62393.86k what clockspeed does that have ? > which is slightly more than half the dual thread attempt, so that > seems to be saying good things about openssl's threading. well, i suppose each packet can be handled in parallel? > what I find very interesting is that using the athlon single proc. > using multiple threads makes performance slightly worse... > understandable. using more than 2 threads on the duallie gets very > little advance. again, I understand this. but using multiple threads > on the little via chip reaps big rewards, esp with the bigger block > sizes, although it murders the machine with massive load averages and > very laggy response. > > this is at 10 threads: > (null) 24912.90k 107973.05k 303573.21k 606096.96k > 1196668.44k > > 100 threads: > (null) 37495.22k 161566.05k 439774.14k 783542.34k > 1864134.09k > > ie I'd say that ethernet and pci bus traffic are the bottleneck to one > of these cpu's speaking of PCI busses... i need 4 netcards, and i would prefer the possibility of 5 or more. What mainboard do you use ? > without the evp flag it gets a score similar to your fw: > > aes-128 cbc 5709.79k 5792.67k 5814.92k 5797.15k > 5831.65k yeah, but what about blowfish, blowfish on my hardware runs almost twice as fast as AES. > incidentally, the aes acceleration can cope with higher rates than > just 128bit > > aes-256-cbc 25523.18k 95334.00k 259990.24k 453591.16k > 581554.67k > > the board I'm using is one of these: > > http://www.viavpsd.com/product/epia_MII_spec.jsp?motherboardId=202 dammit, just one pci slot. > http://linitx.com/product_info.php? > products_id=414&osCsid=918d32a8a21e5e1c7a3696d8907913a8 > > apparently via are going to be adding sha1 and sha256 offload to their > next processor, and some rsa help too. now if only they'd add blowfish > for us geeks, and des&md5 cos damn, it would make a fantastic > /etc/passwd cracking engine :) > > is that helpful? muchos gratios :) JonB |