![]() By against, you can decrypt your USB key permanently by indicating the password a last time. It is impossible to remove the password of your USB key as the data encryption is based on the password that you have set in advance. Ignore this message and mount your USB stick with the program (with the correct password, of course) to use it. The next time you plug your USB drive, Windows will propose you to format it because it does not recognize a known file system on the USB stick. Once it is encrypted, everything that you store will be encrypted automatically by the program. The DiskCryptor AES benchmark is usualy 2x faster than Veracrypt.DiskCryptor is a program similar to TrueCrypt that lets you encrypt your USB drive. Anyway, I will try to measure the DiskCryptor CPU usage via Xperf. The CPU benchmark for VeraCrypt shows a result 20% slower compared to DiskCryptor. I had set up a benchmark to perform a disk benchmark (hd-tune-pro) while performing a 100% CPU usage benchmark (pifast). I suspected that DiskCryptor could be "hiding" the CPU usage. Veracrypt says it has crypto acceleration and Xperf confirms the usage of the hardware accelerated functions. The rest of the CPU usage is reported as KeSaveFloatingPointState calls. This value is very close to what Xperf reports for Veracrypt's encryption thread. Doing the calculation, I got 9,23% CPU usage. The drive speed is ~120MB/s and the encryption speed is 1.3GB/s. Whatever maximum throuput it tells you for AES can be used to determine what VeraCrypt's average CPU usage will be during sustained read/write: Set it to a buffer size of 500MB and let it run. I'm not sure what you mean by benchmarking with no encryption - I assume you mean looking at the CPU when doing raw disk transfers without encryption.Ī good indication of what CPU usage you'll see in VeraCrypt is to use the VeraCrypt benchmark. If DiskCryptor has a similar feature, then that would be useful information too. I'd be interested to see what VeraCrypt's benchmarks are on your systems. They may get reported under "system interrupts". I don't know how DiskCryptor's architecture is - it's not impossible that if the CPU cycles are all inside the filter driver itself that Task Manager isn't seeing them. You will see accurage CPU usage in the VeraCrypt process in task manager. It could be it's just being reported more honestly in VeraCrypt. I don't have a good explanation as to why the CPU usage would be higher in VeraCrypt than DiskCryptor. If your CPU doesn't have hardware AES, then the CPU usage you are quoting is par for the course, especially if the drive is fairly fast. I'll need to know an exact CPU model number to say for sure, though - there are a lot of them and I didn't do an exhaustive search. Third gen i5 should be at least Ivy Bridge, and as far as I know they all do have AES in hardware. (EDIT: I forgot the laptop Core 2 Duo which for the 45nm chip was Penryn, but it didn't have hardware AES either). What is the exact model number of yours? The only 45nm Core 2 Duo I know is Wolfdale, architecture and Wolfdale doesn't have AES in hardware. Not all Core 2 Duos have hardware AES acceleration. The CPU usage you are reporting isn't unusual per se, though it does sound like VeraCrypt isn't using hardware accelerated AES. Whatever maximum throuput it tells you for AES can be used to determine what VeraCrypt's average CPU usage will be during sustained read/write:ĬPUUsage% = (DriveSpeed ÷ EncryptionSpeed) × 100 ![]() A good indication of what CPU usage you'll see in VeraCrypt is to use the VeraCrypt benchmark. I'm not sure what you mean by benchmarking with no encryption - I assume you mean looking at the CPU when doing raw disk transfers without encryption.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |