On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Was hoping for md4 vs. aes128 comparisons, (and AES-NI isn't everywhere,
> but will be, soon enough).

On my box with AES-NI disabled:
$ openssl speed aes-128-cbc
Doing aes-128 cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 14536333 aes-128 cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128 cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 3914941 aes-128 cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128 cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 998659 aes-128 cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128 cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 250825 aes-128 cbc's in 3.01s
Doing aes-128 cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 31488 aes-128 cbc's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Thu Oct 16 15:38:47 UTC 2014
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int)
aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS
-D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN
-DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY
-DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5
-DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM
-DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
aes-128 cbc      77527.11k    83518.74k    85218.90k    85330.50k    85983.23k

Same box, with AES-NI enabled:
$ openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc
Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 115446037 aes-128-cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 31613460 aes-128-cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 8096806 aes-128-cbc's in 3.00s
Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 2036515 aes-128-cbc's in 3.01s
Doing aes-128-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 254238 aes-128-cbc's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Thu Oct 16 15:38:47 UTC 2014
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int)
aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS
-D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN
-DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY
-DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5
-DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM
-DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
aes-128-cbc     615712.20k   674420.48k   690927.45k   692821.05k   694239.23k

Same box, RC4:
$ openssl speed rc4
Doing rc4 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 43771347 rc4's in 3.00s
Doing rc4 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 20474427 rc4's in 3.00s
Doing rc4 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 6568097 rc4's in 3.00s
Doing rc4 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 1780486 rc4's in 3.00s
Doing rc4 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 229652 rc4's in 3.01s
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Thu Oct 16 15:38:47 UTC 2014
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int)
aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS
-D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN
-DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY
-DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5
-DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM
-DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
rc4             233447.18k   436787.78k   560477.61k   607739.22k   625019.66k

Reply via email to