John Joseph

In place IRP processing vs having to generate a new one makes sense to explain these discrepancies, thanks.

Thanks for the answer Alex. Out of curiosity, do you know what DiskCryptor is doing differently ? It seems VeraCrypt inherited these problems from TC, but I'm wondering what (technically) DiskCryptor is doing more ? More precisely, I would have guessed IO pipelining and parallelization would be part of the answer, but VeraCrypt obviously does that. Some form of more involved IO coalescing that DiskCryptor does or something related to TRIM passthrough maybe? That wouldn't explain the big hits in read...

Hello, I'm trying to solve a performance issue I'm having in Windows 10. I'm using an SSD. VeraCrypt gives me AES benchmarks on the order of more than 4 GB/sec by the way. Here are my performance results of CrystalDiskMark under 3 scenarios: non encrypted, partition encrypted with VeraCrypt + AES, BitLocker Encrypted: Non encrypted (Q = queue depth, T = threads), figures are READ WRITE: Seq Q32T1 : 562 MB/s 763 MB/s 4KiB Q8T8 : 191 MB/s 200 MB/s 4KiB Q32T1: 179 MB/s 167 MB/s 4KiB Q1T1: 19 MB/s 35...

Hello, I'm trying to solve a performance issue I'm having in Windows 10. I'm using an SSD. VeraCrypt gives me AES benchmarks on the order of more than 4 GB/sec by the way. Here are my performance results of CrystalDiskMark under 3 scenarios: non encrypted, partition encrypted with VeraCrypt + AES, BitLocker Encrypted: Non encrypted (Q = queue depth, T = threads), figures are READ WRITE: Seq Q32T1 : 562 MB/s 763 MB/s 4KiB Q8T8 : 191 MB/s 200 MB/s 4KiB Q32T1: 179 MB/s 167 MB/s 4KiB Q1T1: 19 MB/s 35...