Performance comparisons of DES and AES

Hi,
Has anyone gathered data in regards to performance comparison of AES vs DES using the JCE in java?
I would be interested in finding which is faster.
Thanks,
Dan

Oh, sorry by the truncated table. I've pasted an abridged version of the "openssl speed" output.
I will paste the unabridged version of "openssl speed des" output (openssl is a C crypto toolkit, not a Java toolkit).
To get the most accurate results, try to run this
program when this computer is idle.
First we calculate the approximate speed ...
Doing des cbc 20971520 times on 16 size blocks: 20971520 des cbc's in 8.11s
Doing des cbc 5242880 times on 64 size blocks: 5242880 des cbc's in 7.97s
Doing des cbc 1310720 times on 256 size blocks: 1310720 des cbc's in 7.86s
Doing des cbc 327680 times on 1024 size blocks: 327680 des cbc's in 7.78s
Doing des cbc 40960 times on 8192 size blocks: 40960 des cbc's in 7.24s
Doing des ede3 6990506 times on 16 size blocks: 6990506 des ede3's in 6.33s
Doing des ede3 1747626 times on 64 size blocks: 1747626 des ede3's in 6.31s
Doing des ede3 436906 times on 256 size blocks: 436906 des ede3's in 6.27s
Doing des ede3 109226 times on 1024 size blocks: 109226 des ede3's in 6.26s
Doing des ede3 13653 times on 8192 size blocks: 13653 des ede3's in 6.08s
OpenSSL 0.9.7d 17 Mar 2004
built on: Thu Apr 22 13:21:37 2004
options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(idx,cisc,4,long) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: cl /MD /W3 /WX /G5 /Ox /O2 /Ob2 /Gs0 /GF /Gy /nologo -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 -DWIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN -DL_ENDIAN -DDSO_WIN32 -DBN_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DSHA1_ASM -DRMD160_ASM /Fdout32dll -DOPENSSL_NO_KRB5
available timing options: TIMEB HZ=1000
timing function used: ftime
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
des cbc          41374.15k    42106.20k    42695.55k    43123.55k    46377.93k
des ede3         17675.11k    17719.91k    17849.97k    17852.74k    18398.65k

Similar Messages

Apache-Netscape webserver plugin performance comparison WL8.1

Hi,
Can anyone guide me abt the performance comparisons between apache and netscape plug-in.
which one of the above wuold be best for WLP .l,Windows 2003 Server,Oracle 9i.
Thanks,
sumit
([email protected])

Hi,
Can anyone guide me abt the performance comparisons between apache and netscape plug-in.
which one of the above wuold be best for WLP .l,Windows 2003 Server,Oracle 9i.
Thanks,
sumit
([email protected])

Looking for Performance Comparisons Between JRockit 6 and Sun Java SE 6

Hello,
Can someone point me to some performance comparisons (benchmarks, etc.) between the JRockit and Sun JVMs?
Thanks in advance.

Hi Ben.
Before I send to to the SPEC sites (which can be a tad hard to parse) I must ask - What application or type of application are you interested in? The answer will vary a bit depending on what you need.

Performance comparison of J2sdkee1.3.1's JMS and iPlanet MQ 2.0

I am evaluating two JMS APIs: The free one comes with J2sdkee 1.3.1 and the iPlanet Message Queue for Java 2.0 (free for development and evaluation, not free on Production environment).
I created two JSP pages running under Tomcat 3.3. One JSP page is calling a Java class 1 which uses j2sdkee1.3.1 JMS API: it creates InitialContext() and lookups for QueueConnectionFactory & Queue, then sends a text message to the Queue.
I did a little performance improvement by putting this process into a static method init(), so it will be called only once. The latter request will only send message.
The second JSP page is calling a Java class 2 which doesn't use JNDI, instead, it calls the new QueueConnectionFactory/QueueConnection classes provided by iPlanet MQ API.
I found out that InitialContext() call and lookup process is taking quite a long time in the first case. After that, sending message is quite fast. However, if "j2ee" is shutdown in the middle, the JSP page can't recover unless I restarted Tomcat server.
The performance of iPlanet MQ API is pretty good even if the QueueConnectionFactory/QueueConnection classes are created for each request. And it can recover after the Broker is restarted.
Anybody experienced in using J2sdkee1.3.1 JMS API? If you know a better way to improve performance other than the static method init() which can't recover, please share your information. Appreciate it.
Thanks,
Ye

Your performance comparison should be identical in all ways except for the particular server you are trying to evaluate. which should be relatively painless, given the use of JNDI.
At the very least, ignore the JNDI lookup in your first test.
I have found the j2ee JMS provider (the free one) to be quite slow, and also have found a bug with the shutdown and startup process changing the message order. which is a fundamental error.
I have used IBM MQ (websphere MQ) and found it to be very fast and worked as expected. I have not used their pub/sub product (which i suspect is based on Talarian.)
I favour servers built in native code, and integrate using JMS. just like I prefer Oracle over a pure Java RDBMS, but like the ease of integration offered with JDBC.
I would avoid webstyle start-up companies like Iplanet. That joint effort seems like a desperate attempt at reviving Netscape thru technology, rather than thru a business concept.

XE and 10g performance comparison

Hi all,
does anyone compared the performance of both systems? What I mean is, would the same query, on the same machine, on the same data and identic plans result in the same execution statistics, hence result in the same run-time on both systems. Or is there somekind of a undocumented bottleneck?
More precisely I would like to source out small domains of my data warehouse on machines running XE. I know that there are no bitmap indizes available, but I think that should be fine for small data sets (between 5mb and 1000mb).
Thanks in advance
Maik

Thanks for your responses. I did some measurements on the weekend comparing the performance of Oracle XE and Oracle 9.2.0.6.0, because I had no 10gR2 ready to hand. SGA, PGA, cache size, shared_pool_size were set to the same sizes.
The result was, that the XE performed 5-6 times slower than the same queries on the 9i database, even with exactly the same execution statistics, as you can see on the example below.
Does anyone has an idea where this run-time overhead is coming from?
Maik
XE:
Elapsed: 00:00:00.06
Statistics
     0 recursive calls
     0 db block gets
2567 consistent gets
     0 physical reads
     0 redo size
2860 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
     461 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
     9 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
     0 sorts (memory)
     0 sorts (disk)
     115 rows processed
9i:
Elapsed: 00:00:00.01
Statistics
     0 recursive calls
     0 db block gets
2567 consistent gets
     0 physical reads
     0 redo size
2754 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
     576 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
     9 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
     1 sorts (memory)
     0 sorts (disk)
     115 rows processed

Performance comparison between using sql and pl/sql for same purpose

Hi All,
I have to do some huge inserts into a table from some other tables. I have 2 option:
Option 1
======
a. Declare a cusor for a query involving all source tables, this will return the data to be populated into target
b. Use a cursor for loop to loop through all the records in the cursor
c. for each iteration of the loop, populate target columns, do any calculations/function calls required to populate derived columns, and then insert the resulting record into target table
Option 2
======
Just write a big single "Insert Into ..... Select ..." statement, doing alll calculations/funtion calls in the select statement generating the source data.
Now my question is ; which option is fast? and why. This operation is performace critical so I need the option which will run faster. Can anybody help???
Thanks in Advance.

user9314072 wrote:
while the above comments are vaild, you should concider maintainability in you code. Even if you can write the sql it might be the code becomes complex making tuning very dificult, and derade performance.Beg to differ on that. Regardless of complexity of code, SQL is always faster than PL/SQL when dealing with SQL data. The reason for that is that PL/SQL still needs to use SQL anyway for row retrieval, and in addition it needs to copy row data from the buffer cache into the PL/SQL PGA. This is an overhead that does not exist in SQL.
So if you are processing a 100 million rows with a complex 100 line SQL statement, versus a 100 million rows 100 line PL/SQL procedure, SQL will always be faster.
It is a trade off, my experiance is large SQL's 100's lines long become hard to manage. You need to ask yourself why there are 100's of line of SQL. This points to an underlying problem. A flaky data model is very likely the cause. Or not using SQL correctly. Many times a 100 line SQL can be changed to a 10 liner by introducing different logic that solves the exact same problem easier and faster (e.g. using analytical SQL, thinking "+out-of-the-box+").
Also, 100's of line of SQL points to a performance issue always. And it does not matter where you move this code logic to PL/SQL or Java or elsewhere, the performance problem will remain. Moving the problem from SQL to PL/SQL or Java does not reduce the number of rows to process, or make a significant change in the number of CPU instructions to be executed. And there's the above overhead mentioned - pulling SQL data into a client memory segment for processing (an overhead that does not exist using SQL).
So how do you address this then? Assuming the data model is correct, then there are 2 primary methods to address the 100's of SQL lines and its associated performance problem.
Modularise the SQL. Make the 100's of lines easier to maintain and understand. This can be done using VIEWS and the SQL WITH clause.
As for the associated performance issue - materialised views comes to mind as an excellent method to address this type of problem.
my advice is keep things simple, because soon or later you will need to change the code.I'm all for that - but introducing more moving parts like PL/SQL or Java and ref cursors and bulk fetching and so on.. how does that reduce complexity?
SQL is the first and best place to solve row crunching problems. Do not be fooled into thinking that you can achieve that same performance using PL/SQL or Java.

What is the speed/performance comparison between Soundbooth CS5 and Audition CS6?

Obviously, I don't need to be convinced about the difference. However, in demonstrating and working with Audition I didn't take a note of these speed differences. Does anyone have this information for business justification reasons?
I am looking for the speed of a sound file (*.wav, approximately 1-5minutes in length) rendering in Soundbooth CS5 and Audition CS6 as well as a comparison of doing 10 files (approximately 1-5 minutes in length each) in Soundbooth and in Audition CS6 (using batch processing) to *.mp3 with basic processes applied. Basic processes that I am checking are Noise Reduction, Trimming front and end silences, Normalization, and rendering to *.mp3 (from *.wav). If anyone can do this for me, that would be awesome!!

travis_smith_ wrote:
Hello _durin_, yes all those are great arguments that I've already included; however, some people like to use accurate measures/times/processes...they want numbers.
So, do you (or anyone else) happen to know the render engine speed of 1 file in Soundbooth v. 1 file in Audition?
What Durin hasn't perhaps made quite clear is that you'd have to do this on just one machine to come up with any comparisons at all - and if that machine isn't identical to yours, then it's going to be meaningless anyway; some of the processes (like NR) will vary considerably between two different machines, even running the same software. There is no way on earth that this would be an accurate comparison, and I don't think it would convince anybody who actually understood what was at issue. This is the politest way of saying that it's not going to happen... and if Durin, as Audition's Product Owner, isn't prepared to commit himself, then nobody's going to.... BUT:
Now I am moving towards the argumentation that it should replace everyone's Soundbooth, which is why I need the justification. I would run the tests myself over the current set of files, but with the license gone, I cannot.
Your real justification isn't going to be based on anything like dodgy process measurements at all, but this: Soundbooth is discontinued - there's very little, if any, support for it now, and there will be no updates to cope with OS changes, etc. Audition, on the other hand, is a long-term, well-supported software product that's under active development, and this is clearly intended to continue. Also there are business package deals to be done (like active subscriptions, etc) that simply weren't available to Soundbooth users, which companies can use far more flexibly. I think you'll find that arguements like this will cut far more mustard than any odious comparisons of 'speed' will.

Speed comparison iPhone 3GS and 4?

Hi,
I am developing a game using Air 2.7 but I only have an iPad 1 to test it on. The speed is really good (a steady 60fps) but I'm a bit curious how fast it will run on 3GS.
Have you guys done any speed comparisons between iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4?
I guess the speed on iPhone 4 is about the same as iPad 1?
Thanks,
/Andreas

I have tested the same vector animations on iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPhone 3GS. If you have selected to use high resolution, the performance on the 3GS and iPhone4 will be similar, because the iPhone 4 will have to update four times the screen area of the 3GS. The iPad 2 may be slightly faster, and I guess you may be right about the iPad 1 being similar to the iPhone 4. If you use standard resolution, the iPhone 4 may be the fastest of them all.

Performance Comparisons

I ma looking for performance comparisons of WebLogic Server on Sun server compared
to an Intel server. I am looking for the number of transactions per second that
can be processed on say a 4-way Wintel server as opposed to a Sun UE or, better
yet, a SunFire 280. Can anyone provide me with this information or point me towards
a source where I can find it?
Thanks!
Greg

Greg Wojtak wrote:
>
I ma looking for performance comparisons of WebLogic Server on Sun server compared
to an Intel server. I am looking for the number of transactions per second that
can be processed on say a 4-way Wintel server as opposed to a Sun UE or, better
yet, a SunFire 280. Can anyone provide me with this information or point me towards
a source where I can find it?
Thanks!Good question in my opinion ... but this is
a more generel question to java between Solaris and
Wintel ..
But seems you have an 4 Processor Intel Box ..
and only a two processor Solaris Box ..
and also the Ultra III processor have a by
far lower taktrate , right ?
The result should be obvious ..
The more generell question is, whether
the Java-Threads can ran so nice on
all processors, as they do on Solaris ..
and also whether you have so much memory
as you can have under Solaris ?
The Thread handling is still totaly different
under Windows and Solaris .. Wintel makes a times
sliced scheduling between the threads .. and
Solaris uses still the concept of LWPs which
are managed by the kernel .. not the threads
themselved are scheduled by the kernel ..
I recently heared during a SUN talk that SUN thought now, that
the overhead in the kernel for the scheduling in not longer
too high .. and they provide in the upcomming Solaris 2.9
a new thread modell which does the scheduling inside of
the kernel ..
I would assume, that a heavy threaded application performs
better on Solaris .. but this is only an assumption ..
I never had the time to measure this ..
Good luck !
Frank

Performance with 2GB RAM and SSD

I own a late 2010 MBA, 13" baseline model with 2GB RAM, w/SSD. I am using Snow Leopard, and it runs perfectly. I would like to upgrade to ML to sync with ipad, but a concerned with performance. I use my MBA for word processing, emails, and internet surfing, including occasional movie downloads. I cannot upgrade the RAM on this model. I would therefore very much appreciate if someone who has run the latest versio of ML on this model can inform me of its performance w/2GB RAM and an SSD drive. (I know it can run; I want to know how it runs). Thanks very much!

Just went through the same situation with my 2006 iMac. Technically my memory tops out at 3gigs, but I can get 4 in there if I insist (though the machine won't take full advantage).
After a considerable amount of research, and hearing some horror stories of some folks who dove straight into Lion on older machines, I opted on upgrading memory to 3gig, backing up all my data, then running a clean install of Snow Leopard. I then reinstalled all my stuff, followed with a run of Monolingual (a shareware program that removes unnecessary languages and builds), then ran OnyX (another shareware) to run scripts and check/repair permissions.
Works fantastic. Machine is operating perfectly on 10.6.8 and with the memory upgrade and clean drive its running faster than ever. Definite new breath of life in the machine.
As per memory upgrade, I'd recommend going to Crucial. They're very Mac friendly, customer oriented, and reasonably priced. They have a small program you can download that scans your machine to determine the correct chip required, then brings you stright to an info and ordering page. I managed to get a 2gig chip with shipping for about $25. With the Snow Leopard upgrade total cost was under $60 for resuscitation.

Weblogic server performance is very slow and memory consumption is 99%

I am facing one critical issue with the weblogic server..
The server performance is very slow and one of the process is consuming more that 99% of the memory. Bouncing the server is not resolving the issue.
Can see the memory usage below...
Tasks: 134 total, 2 running, 132 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s):100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 7990656k total, 7947652k used, 43004k free, 9164k buffers
Swap: 16386260k total, 4691704k used, 11694556k free, 56352k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
10263 oracle 24 0 10.9g 6.5g 14m S 99.2 85.3 34:31.52 java
7409 oracle 16 0 12764 768 508 S 0.3 0.0 0:16.45 top
Can some body help me on this.
Thanks in advance.
-Prasad

Use the weblogic forum-
WebLogic Server - Upgrade / Install / Environment / Migration

I performed a software update and the system is installing an update but it has been running for over 24hrs and keeps saying "This may take a few minutes, don't shut down your computer" Can anyone help?

I performed a software update and the system is installing an update but it has been running for over 24hrs and keeps saying "This may take a few minutes, don't shut down your computer" Can anyone help?

Hello cor-el, thanks for your reply. I changed my settings for downloads to desktop and it has appeared on there. When I double click I am asked which program I want to open file. I click firefox and another box "opening install" says I have chosen to open the file which is an application and do I want to save it. This is the only real option so I press save file. I get a box saying this is an executable file which may contain viruses - do you want to run. I press ok and the final box showing C drive file name and desktop appears stating application not found.
This happens the same whenever I try to install.
To my untrained eye the application is not being recognised as an application and I cannot work out how to get it to do that.
My plugin is still showing as out of date.
Is there anything you could suggest. Thanks for your time.

When I plug a LaCie external hard drive into my new Mac mini, [os 10.9.1], to use with Time Machine it effects the performance of my internet and email. Turn off Time Machine and unplug the hard drive and the internet and email are working normally again

When I plug a LaCie external hard drive to work with Time Machine into my new Mac mini, [OS 10.9.1] it drastically effects the performance of the internet and email, turn off Time Machine, unplug the hard drive, internet and email go back to normal. Why?

Maybe:
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/usb-3.0-hard-drives-can-cause-wi-fi-inter ference

Performance tuning in BPEL and ESB

Hi,
Any one can tell me how to do Performance tuning in BPEL and ESB.
How to create WEB SERVICES in BPEL

Hi',
Performance tuning in BPEL and ESB.
***This is very big topic I can give you 2 points here
In BPEL we should avoid the use of duplicate variable, the best way to do this is, when ever we are creating a new variable
we need to ask can we reuse variable from inside the process, example when creating the input/output variable in Invoke activity
we need to check if we can use some existing variable instead of creating new.
All the DB related operation should be performed in 1 single composite.
How to create WEB SERVICES in BPEL
Not sure what you want to ask here, as BPEL is itself a webservice.
-Yatan

[URGENT] Performance problem with BC4J and partioned data

Hi all,
I have a big performance probelm with BC4J and partitioned data. As as partitioned table shouldn't have a primary key like a sequence (or something else) my partitioned table doesn't have any primary key.
When I debug my BC4J application I can see a message showing me "ignoring row with no primary key" from EntityCache. It takes a long time to retrieve my data even if I use the partition keys. A quick & dirty forms application was multiple times faster!
Is this a bug in BC4J, or is BC4J not suitable for partitioned data? Can anyone give me a hint what to do, do make the BC4J application fast even with partitioned data? In a non-partitioned environment the application works quite well. So it seams that it must be an "error" somewhere in this part.
Thanks,
Axel

Here's a SQL statement that creates the table.
CREATE TABLE SEARCH
(SEAR_PARTKEY_DAY              NUMBER(4)        NOT NULL
,SEAR_PARTKEY_EMP            VARCHAR2(2)      NOT NULL
,SEAR_ID                     NUMBER(20)       NOT NULL
,SEAR_ENTRY_DATE             TIMESTAMP        NOT NULL
,SEAR_LAST_MODIFIED            TIMESTAMP             NOT NULL
,SEAR_STATUS                 VARCHAR2(100)    DEFAULT '0'
,SEAR_ITC_DATE               TIMESTAMP        NOT NULL
,SEAR_MESSAGE_CLASS          VARCHAR2(15)     NOT NULL
,SEAR_CHIPHERING_TYPE        VARCHAR2(256)
,SEAR_GMAT                   VARCHAR2(1)      DEFAULT 'U'
,SEAR_NATIONALITY            VARCHAR2(3)      DEFAULT 'XXX'
,SEAR_MESSAGE_ID             VARCHAR2(32)     NOT NULL
,SEAR_COMMENT                VARCHAR2(256)    NOT NULL
,SEAR_NUMBER_OF              NUMBER(3)        NOT NULL
,SEAR_INTERCEPTION_SYSTEM    VARCHAR2(40)
,SEAR_COMM_PRIOD_H           NUMBER(5)        DEFAULT -1
,SEAR_PRIOD_R                  NUMBER(5)        DEFAULT -1
,SEAR_INMARSAT_CES           VARCHAR2(40)
,SEAR_BEAM                   VARCHAR2(10)
,SEAR_DIALED_NUMBER          VARCHAR2(70)
,SEAR_TRANSMIT_NUMBER        VARCHAR2(70)
,SEAR_CALLED_NUMBER          VARCHAR2(40)
,SEAR_CALLER_NUMBER          VARCHAR2(40)
,SEAR_MATERIAL_TYPE          VARCHAR2(3)      NOT NULL
,SEAR_SOURCE                 VARCHAR2(10)
,SEAR_MAPPING                VARCHAR2(100)    DEFAULT '__REST'
,SEAR_DETAIL_MAPPING         VARCHAR2(100)
,SEAR_PRIORITY               NUMBER(3)        DEFAULT 255
,SEAR_LANGUAGE               VARCHAR2(5)      DEFAULT 'XXX'
,SEAR_TRANSMISSION_TYPE      VARCHAR2(40)
,SEAR_INMARSAT_STD           VARCHAR2(1)
,SEAR_FILE_NAME              VARCHAR2(100)    NOT NULL
PARTITION BY RANGE (SEAR_PARTKEY_DAY, SEAR_PARTKEY_EMP)
PARTITION SEARCH_MAX VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE, MAXVALUE) MIRA4_SEARCH_EVEN
);of course SEAR_ID is filled by a sequence but the field is not the primary key as it would decrease the performance of partitioned data.
We moved to native JDBC with our application and the performance is like we never expected to be!

Performance comparisons of DES and AES

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for