Introduction: Transparent Data Encryption
SQL Server’s EncryptBy* and DecryptBy* address encryption of
a subset of data in a database. This was introduced in SQL Server 2005. The big
news in SQL Server 2008 is Transparent Data Encryption.
On the surface, Transparent Data Encryption seems to be a security “silver
bullet”. The most important feature (besides securing the data) is that it does
not require any changes to your application code. Data is encrypted “at
rest” which means that “data
is encrypted before it is written to disk; data is decrypted when it is
read from disk.”
As is true of any security-related feature, Transparent Data
Encryption is meant to be just a part of a defense-in-depth strategy.
Transparent Data Encryption has an above-average list of
TDE is a SQL Server 2008 Enterprise-only feature. (Of course, it
works on Developer-Edition also.)
Microsoft says the performance hit is “largely dictated by the
application workload, in some of the testing we conducted, the overhead was
measured to be less than 5%.” (ref)
When you turn on TDE for one database in an instance, tempdb is
encrypted for all databases on that instance. Microsoft says, “This might have
a performance effect for unencrypted databases on the same instance of SQL
“Encrypted data compresses significantly less than equivalent
unencrypted data. If TDE is used to encrypt a database, backup compression will
not be able to significantly compress the backup storage. Therefore, using TDE
and backup compression together is not recommended.” (ref)
“While a re-encryption scan for a database encryption operation
is in progress, maintenance operations to the database are disabled.” (ref)
The focus here is to test the performance of SQL Server
2008’s Transparent Data Encryption. How does it perform compared to a database
without encryption? (For information on how EncryptByKey/DecryptByKey affects
performance, see SqlCredit
Part 8: Comparing Encrypt/DecryptByCert and Encrypt/DecryptByKey.) How does
the mix of SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE affect the performance results? We’ll see how
these results compare to Microsoft’s published expectations and also include
the full code so you can rerun the tests in your environment.
If you have read some of my recent performance test
articles, much of the details below will be familiar.
Test System Details
For this test, I used this system:
4 64-bit Dual-Core AMD Processors
16 GB RAM
Direct-attached SCSI drives
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise
SQL Server 2008 (RTM)
Each table has a clustered primary key on the ID column.
- Vendor: non-unique index on BusinessName
- Card: unique index on CardNumber, SecurityCode
- Card: non-unique index on SecurityCode, CardNumber
- Card: non-unique index on SecureString
- Purchase: non-unique index on CardID
- Purchase: non-unique index on VendorID
The test scripts are built to mimic an OLTP workload. There
are three tables involved: Vendor, Card, and Purchase.
The “Executive Summary”
The tests use multiple simultaneous calls to a SQL script that
calls stored procedures in a loop to first load and then read, insert, or
The Gory Details
The “driver” for this test is a simple framework I built
years ago called Hummer. It uses a .bat file to run some initial setup scripts
then starts n simultaneous processes, each running the same script. The
idea is to simulate multiple clients fighting for database resources. Each
script includes an occasional call to DELAY. This helps to allow the multiple
processes to share the database resources. It also better simulates a real OLTP
There were multiple tests with different parameters. You can
see all the details in the chart below. Let’s look at Test Run 7 as an
The .bat script performs these steps:
- Drop and recreate the database.
- Create the tables and indexes.
- Create the stored procedures.
- Start 10 processes, each running the main test script.
The CREATE DATABASE script creates the Data file with an
initial size of 100 MB and the Log with an initial size of 20 MB, each set to grow
The main test script performs these steps:
- Execute DBCC FREESYSTEMCACHE.
- Execute DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS.
- Delay 5 seconds on start-up (to allow all processes to start).
- Loop 100,000 times
Read control parameters (SP call). If finished with test, stop.
(This also allows you to change the parameters or stop the test while it’s
- Every 1000 loops, delay 1 second.
- For the first 10,000 loops, create a Vendor record (SP call).
- For the first 10,000 loops, create a Card record (SP call).
- For the first 10,000 loops, create a Purchase record (SP call).
- Of every 10 loops:
- 4 of 10 times: read a Card record.
- 3 of 10 times: update a Vendor record.
- 3 of 10 times: insert a Purchase record.
- End loop
(After the first 10,000 loops, all
read and update activity is on some random record in the set.)
This process is run for both the Base (unencrypted) and TDE
It is important to understand that we’re inserting 10,000
Vendor, Card, and Purchase records per process. So, the total number of
records inserted (in the initial set) is 100,000 records per table.
The elapsed time is for the looping work only, not the
database creation or any of the other setup work.
Parameters consistent in all tests:
- LoopMax: 100,000
- Process Count: 10
- Records Created: 10,000 per process per table
- “AvgET” times are in milliseconds
The average over all sixteen tests was 6.36%. There
is clearly some variation among the tests, but I believe this gives a good
indication of the overhead of using TDE for a transactional workload.
Remember that this is running the exact same workload on the
exact same hardware.
I don’t see a strong pattern showing that, for instance,
reads are cheaper than writes. There is certainly an indication that
reads are cheaper than writes, but it’s not a consistent pattern.
How does TDE affect CPU usage? This is a tough one to answer
definitively. What seems appropriate is to show representative CPU graphs from
the various runs. You can draw your own conclusions from the graphs. My
opinion? There is no clear difference. TDE does not add a noticeable amount of
Note that, for consistency, I captured these images at the
same point in each test (right after the 70,000th loop completed).
Full-Read Test (10/0/0) – Base
Full-Read Test (10/0/0) – TDE
Full-Write Test (0/5/5) – Base
Full-Write Test (0/5/5) – TDE
The average elapsed-time overhead was 6.36%. This
confirms that “in some of the testing …, the overhead was measured to be less
than 5%.” Given the benefit of having “at rest” data encrypted, this seems like
a very reasonable cost.
Having run a number of similar tests on new features in SQL
Server, I am amazed that TDE has such a minimal effect on the time to run a
workload, and it has no obvious affect on CPU utilization. In my mind, this is
a clear win. TDE adds very little cost to your processing, it costs nothing
(assuming you’ve already paid for Enterprise Edition), and you don’t have to
change your application at all. Bravo to the development team for
delivering such a strong new feature.
Thoughts? Drop a note in the forum or
leave a comment.
All of the code is included, so feel free to modify it and
rerun the tests to suit your specific needs. If you do rerun the tests, please
share the results.
Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) from Books Online
Encryption in SQL Server 2008 Enterprise Edition from MSDN
Server 2008: Transparent data encryption feature – a quick overview from Laurentiu
Server 2008 – Transparent Data Encryption from Andrew Fryer’s blog
Server 2008 Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) from Jose Barreto’s Blog
Server 2008 Transparent Data Encryption from Brad M McGehee’s blog
Download the files for this article.