On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote:
The CPU overhead of bulk data checksumming on servers should be quite
high; FWIW a simple test of sha1sum gives me 154 MB/s with my fairly
recent CPU. The additional cost (CPUs or HW crypto engines) required to
achieve good performance may be too high for most HPC users, at least for
regular access inside a cluster; it could be interesting to enable or
disable checksumming for classes of clients.
I've seen a little laptop running Solaris ZFS do checksumming at over a 1
GByte / sec. Probably finding the right algorithms is important here.
Certainly. SHA1 is a cryptographic hash, and I would not be surprised if the
ZFS checksum you saw in use were not.
For the curious, I stumbled upon a performance comparison of various
related algorithms here:
http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html
http://www.cryptopp.com/amd64-benchmarks.html
It seems that the Panama hash can achieve must better performance than
SHA1, but it's not obvious to me if it's as safe as SHA1. And I have no
idea if it's usable for Lustre+Kerberos. :)
--
Jean-Marc Saffroy - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Lustre-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
