5/1/2023 0 Comments Bitlocker vs veracrypt![]() ![]() You have every right to complain about this long-standing issue, BUT only if you've done your part and donated to the project.īlaming volunteer developers who often pay for website hosting and download bandwidth out of their own pockets for not "caring" enough is utterly ridiculous and shows just why the open source model is so broken the developers are sacrificing themselves for users that are simply selfish and don't appreciate what's being done for them for free. The idrassi poster in this thread is the developer (singular), but he has been unable to devote as much time to VeraCrypt in recent years due to insufficient financial support he has to have a paying job. I seriously doubt the developers ever cared enough to do anything about it. This issue is top priority and hasn't been fixed for almost 5 years now. ![]() Of course, external help is welcomed for such complex technical task especially that we want to keep file containers support. Some time ago I have implemented a prototype with a dual logic for file containers and disks but there was huge stability and reliability problems and I could find an easy solution for them.Ĭlearly the next version of VeraCrypt must address this and I hope there will be enough resources to work on this. Ideally, we should handle IRP in place for disks without context switch to have maximum performance and this requires a big architecture in order to keep both IRP logic working at the same time (a user can mount a file container and a disk simultaneously). ![]() VeraCrypt uses the same IRP logic for both file containers and disks. VeraCrypt tends to be slower for random read/write access because of its driver architecture and the way it handles IRP for I/O.īecause VeraCrypt supports file containers (which is not the case of DiskCryptor and Bitlocker), it can not handle IRPs in place and it must create a new IRP to the holding file for every read and which in turn causes a thread context switch. So I afraid it is some architecture problem initially created in TC. I read some opinions that TC was also slow on fast SSD disks. The only drawback of DiskCryptor for me is no audits.īut I cannot accept so dramatic speed regression even if VeraCrypt is successor of TC and it was audited. Single SSD setup has 8 times more IOPS and + 90 MB/s for linear read. Hardware HDD RAID0 with on-board RAM cache gives me 10 times more read IOPS and +170 MB/s for linear read speed. It has approximately the same speed as unencrypted volume. I had to switch my storage system to DiskCryptor solution due to this issue. So it would be very good if somebody can help to at least understand the reason. 3-10 times less depending on hardware.Ĭommon symptom: writing is less affected than reading.ĭue to this issue CPU speed does not make a lot of sense to estimate how fast disk encryption will be. I got the same problem with 2.5'' SSD and HDD with hardware RAID0. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |