Jason Gerard DeRose <jder...@novacut.com> added the comment: Barry,
I'm suspicious there might be more to the performance issue than just the ecryptfs overhead. While experimenting with a read benchmark, I just happened to notice that when reading from an ecryptfs filesystem, the CPU usage is unusually high in the *python3* process. For example: ./benchmark.py /home/.dmedia => 149 MB per second => top shows 22-24% CPU usage ./benchmark.py /home/jderose/.dmedia => 38.9 MB per second => top shows 79-85% CPU usage It's the same physical drive in both cases, but the one in /home/jderose is ecryptfs. If it was just ecryptfs overhead, wouldn't there be lower CPU utilization in the python3 process, as there would be a lower throughput coming from the kernel, more time waiting on IO? In both cases, there were 56 files, for a total of 19.5 GB. I ran this on 64-bit Ubuntu Oneiric, Python 3.2.2. Here's the benchmark: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jderose/filestore/multi/view/head:/benchmark.py ---------- nosy: +jderose _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11677> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
