On 2019-11-25 16:27, Chris Hague wrote:
Can anyone give me some real world performance expectations for enabling encryption at rest?
NAE for AFF NVE for FAS
There is a document, created by NetApp, which does this. It's labeled "confidential" so you'd have to go ask your NTAP rep I guess. It's called
Performance Considerations NetApp Volume Encryption
Real world, well it isn't really that per se. But absolutely real in the sense that it was a proper test. Performance benchmarks run w/ and w/o NAE & NVE for AFF (8080 & 8040). For FAS I do not think there is anything and spinning disk is a problem in so many was anyway that you probably better stay away from NVE/NAE there. It will just become even more unpredictable for you than it already is to to speak.
Not sure why you write "NAE for AFF" but "NVE for FAS". For FAS I'd recommend NSE disk --> no impact.
VMWare running on NFS, CIFS, FCP
All filers running within acceptable CPU \ DISK UTIL. (50% and under). Is there a latency penalty?
By this you probably mean that both CPU and Disk util are well under <50% "everywhere". VMware running on... could mean anything. That notion doesn't say anything really. What the workload is depends on what the VM's are doing of course.
The general A is that yes there is a latency penalty but YMMV. It's quite possible that *you* in your use case would not notice any such heightened latency. It all depends on how hard you push the system overall. There's a IOPS vs Latency curve of course, there always is. NVE/NAE will move this curve compared to w/o encryption. Exactly how depends on your particular workload pattern.
Cheers, M