ecryptfs-users team mailing list archive

[David Tomaschik <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your case may be different, but on any reasonably modern computer, I believe
that you will be limited by I/O for large files, not CPU to do encryption.
 I certainly haven't noticed any performance difference on large files (no
benchmarks to back that up, just personal experience.)

David


On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Christian Obst <christian_obst@xxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I originally sent this to ecryptfs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, as
> suggested here[1]. However, this list does not seem to exist anymore
> (although I could register there...).
>
> Christian
>
> [1]: http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs-faq.html#nothere
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> I am thinking about encrypting my home dir, but occacsionally, I move
> large files around (i.e. movies), and I am worrying about performance.
> Is it possible to have something like a reverse ~/Private
> configuration, i.e. my home is generally encrypted, but I can designate
> one directory that automatically stores non-encrypted data? Something
> like ~/Insecure?
>
> Another example would be game files, because I imagine having them
> decrypted on-the-fly while playing could significantly slow it down.
>
> If that is not possible, could it be implemented?
>
> Many thanks,
> Christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-users
> Post to     : ecryptfs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-users
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>



-- 
David Tomaschik, RHCE, LPIC-1
GNU/Linux System Architect
GPG: 0x5DEA789B
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx