On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alan wrote:
> On 2/25/08, Alan <alan(a)clueserver.org> wrote:
>> > the context here might make this question inappropriate, but i
>> > installed f9 alpha inside virtualbox in two different ways, with only
>> > one difference -- whether the all-encompassing root file system was
>> > encrypted or not.
>> > within virtualbox, the encrypted VM is *waaaaay* slower than the
>> > unencrypted one. should i expect the same performance difference
>> > regular hard disk installs? just curious. i expected a difference
>> > but this is *hugely* noticeable and almost unusable.
>> That sounds like an artifact of virtualbox. I am using full disk
>> encryption on F9 alpha and I am seeing little, if any, slowdown. Maybe
>> 64-bit helps.
> Same here, on i686.
As a side note, I have run VMWare with and without the hardware
virtualization. It DOES make a difference. I do not know if
VirtualBox uses the hardware virtualization. If it does not, it
that may be, but the difference here has nothing to do with whether
the H/W virtualization is being used or not, it's whether encryption
is being used or not. in both cases, the status of the H/W
virtualization is going to be the same.
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA