Of course, external help is welcomed for such complex technical task especially that we want to keep file containers support. Some time ago I have implemented a prototype with a dual logic for file containers and disks but there was huge stability and reliability problems and I could find an easy solution for them.Ĭlearly the next version of VeraCrypt must address this and I hope there will be enough resources to work on this. Ideally, we should handle IRP in place for disks without context switch to have maximum performance and this requires a big architecture in order to keep both IRP logic working at the same time (a user can mount a file container and a disk simultaneously). VeraCrypt uses the same IRP logic for both file containers and disks.
#Veracrypt vs bitlocker driver
VeraCrypt tends to be slower for random read/write access because of its driver architecture and the way it handles IRP for I/O.īecause VeraCrypt supports file containers (which is not the case of DiskCryptor and Bitlocker), it can not handle IRPs in place and it must create a new IRP to the holding file for every read and which in turn causes a thread context switch. So I afraid it is some architecture problem initially created in TC. I read some opinions that TC was also slow on fast SSD disks. The only drawback of DiskCryptor for me is no audits.īut I cannot accept so dramatic speed regression even if VeraCrypt is successor of TC and it was audited. Single SSD setup has 8 times more IOPS and + 90 MB/s for linear read. Hardware HDD RAID0 with on-board RAM cache gives me 10 times more read IOPS and +170 MB/s for linear read speed.
![veracrypt vs bitlocker veracrypt vs bitlocker](https://www.saashub.com/images/app/screenshots/11/3deebb0cc47b/landing-medium.jpg)
It has approximately the same speed as unencrypted volume. I had to switch my storage system to DiskCryptor solution due to this issue.
![veracrypt vs bitlocker veracrypt vs bitlocker](https://www.pc-magazin.de/bilder/451726/800x480-c2/Festplatte-Verschluesselung.jpg)
So it would be very good if somebody can help to at least understand the reason.
![veracrypt vs bitlocker veracrypt vs bitlocker](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jo5gou-FSHQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
3-10 times less depending on hardware.Ĭommon symptom: writing is less affected than reading.ĭue to this issue CPU speed does not make a lot of sense to estimate how fast disk encryption will be. If you are held by law breakers, and demanded to give the key, you can let them have a fake unlocking key that will open the fake volume you have created. A peculiarity of VeraCrypt is the ability to create a hidden encrypted partition. I got the same problem with 2.5'' SSD and HDD with hardware RAID0. VeraCrypt can also encrypt your system drive, but we recommend using the Windows-integrated tool, BitLocker.