I've taken a cursory look at this and believe you're just hitting the
performance limitations of eCryptfs. It is just much more apparent when
using an SSD as compared to spinning media.
However, I've spotted something that looks a little fishy in
ecryptfs_write_end(). We're calling ecryptfs_encrypt_page(), which
encrypts the page and writes it to the lower filesystem. But we're
calling ecryptfs_encrypt_page() again in ecryptfs_writepage(). I need to
do some more work to see if we can remove the call to
ecryptfs_encrypt_page() in ecryptfs_write_end() and just let
ecryptfs_writepage() handle it. If so, the early testing of removing
this call improves performance greatly, but I'm not going to post
numbers until I do a little more digging.
** Changed in: ecryptfs
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: ecryptfs
Status: New => Confirmed
** Changed in: ecryptfs
Assignee: (unassigned) => Tyler Hicks (tyhicks)
** Changed in: ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Tyler Hicks (tyhicks) => (unassigned)
--
writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to
unencrypted partition on the same drive
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
