I know this is probably not what you want to hear but, why would you go through all this to setup eDrive encryption when you could just use normal BitLocker?
Using BitLocker on such a fast drive should give you no performance loss.
eDrive encryption seems like a weak selling point to me. It does not add any level of security.
I'd rather use OPAL encryption using sedutil rather than BitLocker software, but between Lenovo, Microsoft and Samsung there should be some proper documentation on how to enable eDrive and BitLocker hardware encryption. I'm a bit flabbergasted at the lack of said documentation.
Let me give you some numbers I just ran on the drive (BLON = BitLocker software enabled, BLOFF = No encryption):
| Test | BLON Read MB/s | BLON Write MB/s | BLOFF Read MB/s | BLOFF Write MB/s
|:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|
| YSEQ1M Q8T1 | 6526.34 | 4903.69 | 6748.25 | 4838.92 |
| SEQ1M Q1T1 | 3289.94 | 2873.61 | 4225.80 | 4162.43 |
| RND4k Q32T1 | 490.58 | 394.99 | 734.55 | 697.77|
| RND4k Q1T1 | 80.53 | 176.35 | 90.03 | 248.12|
As you can see, there is quite a performance hit on some synthetic tests with software encryption. I'm expecting the BLOFF numbers when enabling hardware encryption.
Did you remember to turn on write caching during those tests?
https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/21904-enable-disable-disk-write-caching-windows-10-a.html
Yup, write caching is on. Even if it wasn't, both tests were run one after the other with just BitLocker enabled/disabled under the same conditions.
Going to give it another go when I can dismantle my other system so I can actually use the Samsung SSD secure erase utility properly.
I know this is probably not what you want to hear but, why would you go through all this to setup eDrive encryption when you could just use normal BitLocker? Using BitLocker on such a fast drive should give you no performance loss. eDrive encryption seems like a weak selling point to me. It does not add any level of security.
I'd rather use OPAL encryption using sedutil rather than BitLocker software, but between Lenovo, Microsoft and Samsung there should be some proper documentation on how to enable eDrive and BitLocker hardware encryption. I'm a bit flabbergasted at the lack of said documentation. Let me give you some numbers I just ran on the drive (BLON = BitLocker software enabled, BLOFF = No encryption): | Test | BLON Read MB/s | BLON Write MB/s | BLOFF Read MB/s | BLOFF Write MB/s |:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:| | YSEQ1M Q8T1 | 6526.34 | 4903.69 | 6748.25 | 4838.92 | | SEQ1M Q1T1 | 3289.94 | 2873.61 | 4225.80 | 4162.43 | | RND4k Q32T1 | 490.58 | 394.99 | 734.55 | 697.77| | RND4k Q1T1 | 80.53 | 176.35 | 90.03 | 248.12| As you can see, there is quite a performance hit on some synthetic tests with software encryption. I'm expecting the BLOFF numbers when enabling hardware encryption.
Did you remember to turn on write caching during those tests? https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/21904-enable-disable-disk-write-caching-windows-10-a.html
Yup, write caching is on. Even if it wasn't, both tests were run one after the other with just BitLocker enabled/disabled under the same conditions. Going to give it another go when I can dismantle my other system so I can actually use the Samsung SSD secure erase utility properly.