CloudFS vs. ecryptfs vs. encfs

Jeff Darcy jdarcy at redhat.com
Fri Jun 10 12:57:57 UTC 2011


Just for fun, I ran some experiments comparing performance of CloudFS
vs. ecryptfs/encfs on top of "vanilla" GlusterFS.  Take these with a
grain of salt, since these are very quick tests with only a single
server on my 1GbE test systems.  This is using the current AES code
without read-modify-write, and unoptimized binaries (because I use those
for debugging and I couldn't be bothered rebuilding etc. just for this).

(MB/s)        write    rewrite    read
CloudFS        21.4       38.3    46.0
ecryptfs        5.1       18.2    89.9
encfs           2.3        2.3    81.2

The abysmal performance of ecryptfs/encfs for writes was expected, due
to context switches and copies between themselves and GlusterFS.  Their
good performance on reads was much more of a surprise.  It looks like it
might be worth investigating the read-performance issue in CloudFS.
Also, this gives us an approximate idea of how much performance
"headroom" we have as we make the CloudFS encryption more secure.


More information about the cloudfs-devel mailing list