Developers: How does BitLocker affect performance?

Question

I'm an ASP.NET / C# developer. I use VS2010 all the time. I am thinking of enabling BitLocker on my laptop to protect the contents, but I am concerned about performance degradation. Developers who use IDEs like Visual Studio are working on lots and lots of files at once. More than the usual office worker, I would think.

So I was curious if there are other developers out there who develop with BitLocker enabled. How has the performance been? Is it noticeable? If so, is it bad?

My laptop is a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM and an Intel X25-M G2 SSD. It's pretty snappy but I want it to stay that way. If I hear some bad stories about BitLocker, I'll keep doing what I am doing now, which is keeping stuff RAR'ed with a password when I am not actively working on it, and then SDeleting it when I am done (but it's such a pain).

Answer 1

I used to use the PGP disk encryption product on a laptop (and ran NTFS compressed on top of that!). It didn't seem to have much effect if the amount of disk to be read was small; and most software sources aren't huge by disk standards.

You have lots of RAM and pretty fast processors. I spent most of my time thinking, typing or debugging.

I wouldn't worry very much about it.

Answer 2

Having used a laptop with BitLocker enabled for almost 2 years now with more or less similar specs (although without the SSD unfortunately), I can say that it really isn't that bad, or even noticable. Although I have not used this particular machine without BitLocker enabled, it really does not feel sluggish at all when compared to my desktop machine (dual core, 16 GB, dual Raptor disks, no BitLocker). Building large projects might take a bit longer, but not enough to notice.

To back this up with more non-scientifical "proof": many of my co-workers used their machines intensively without BitLocker before I joined the company (it became mandatory to use it around the time I joined, even though I am pretty sure the two events are totally unrelated), and they have not experienced noticable performance degradation either.

For me personally, having an "always on" solution like BitLocker beats manual steps for encryption, hands-down. Bitlocker-to-go (new on Windows 7) for USB devices on the other hand is simply too annoying to work with, since you cannot easily exchange information with non-W7 machines. Therefore I use TrueCrypt for removable media.

Answer 3

I am talking here from a theoretical point of view; I have not tried BitLocker.

BitLocker uses AES encryption with a 128-bit key. On a Core2 machine, clocked at 2.53 GHz, encryption speed should be about 110 MB/s, using one core. The two cores could process about 220 MB/s, assuming perfect data transfer and core synchronization with no overhead, and that nothing requires the CPU in the same time (that one hell of an assumption, actually). The X25-M G2 is announced at 250 MB/s read bandwidth (that's what the specs say), so, in "ideal" conditions, BitLocker necessarily involves a bit of a slowdown.

However read bandwidth is not that important. It matters when you copy huge files, which is not something that you do very often. In everyday work, access time is much more important: as a developer, you create, write, read and delete many files, but they are all small (most of them are much smaller than one megabyte). This is what makes SSD "snappy". Encryption does not impact access time. So my guess is that any performance degradation will be negligible(*).

(*) Here I assume that Microsoft's developers did their job properly.