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