Open Stack

Hi Dave,

With the same key length and backend, we’ve done some quick checks at the
time, but did not notice any significant performance impact (beyond a slight
CPU increase). We did not test beyond the QoS limits we apply, though.

Cheers,
 Arne
 

> On 9 Jan 2019, at 16:13, Dave Holland <dh3 at sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've just started investigating Cinder volume encryption using Queens
> (RHOSP13) with a Ceph/RBD backend and the performance overhead is...
> surprising. Some naive bonnie++ numbers, comparing a plain vs encrypted
> volume:
> 
> plain: write 1400MB/s, read 390MB/s
> encrypted: write 81MB/s, read 83MB/s
> 
> The encryption was configured with:
> 
> openstack volume type create --encryption-provider nova.volume.encryptors.luks.LuksEncryptor --encryption-cipher aes-xts-plain64 --encryption-key-size 256 --encryption-control-location front-end LuksEncryptor-Template-256
> 
> Does anyone have a similar setup, and can share their performance
> figures, or give me an idea of what percentage performance impact I
> should expect? Alternatively: is AES256 overkill, or, where should I
> start looking for a misconfiguration or bottleneck?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Dave
> -- 
> ** Dave Holland ** Systems Support -- Informatics Systems Group **
> ** 01223 496923 **    Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK    **
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research 
> Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a 
> company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered 
> office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. 
> 

--
Arne Wiebalck
CERN IT