I'd like to see what it does to IO wait times, maybe some photos of some severe IO wait time graphing with and then without the encryption. I've had IO wait times on my mind this week, maybe falling from the recent Phoronix start up time comparison article. Doesn't matter how many CPU cores you have when the hard drive is buried by requests. I'd love to see a RAID 1 solution where the heads of the drives work independently, focusing on transfer speeds first and then mirroring each other in the back ground. Most RAID 1 solutions only do mirroring. I'd rather see the drives working as if it was one hard drive, a virtual hard drive, with three heads.
I love the idea of using encryption, but I don't like the idea of having even more hard drive thrashing. And my experience with encryption is soured from using XP where after the OS crashed, I couldn't get any files out of my personal folders. You would think they would make that user friendly. They didn't. I wonder how that works with this Linux solution?
Live responsibly and please don't drink and breathe.
My first post after watching so many other people post =]
I felt I had to share my thoughts on hdparm, my results are actually very consistent on a WD750gbs. It usually sticks around 94MB/s with little fluctuation.
Also one thing I would have liked to see is data transfer from one HDD to another as a USB stick may be bottlenecking a little. Also if a rough comparison of CPU usage would also be nice. I really couldn't expect CPU usage to be an exact science, but rather just to give an idea of how much if at all it uses the CPU in comparison to non-encrypted drive.