Full transparency on unwanted performance side effects of encrypted volumes

[cserl]

Is there any transfer speed, security or other tradeoff with encrypted shares vs. volumes? I have 7 thin volumes.

[P3R]

Is there any transfer speed, security or other tradeoff with encrypted shares vs. volumes?

The limitations with shared folder encryption that I'm aware of are those that are documented:

• The encryption key cannot include dollar signs ($) or equal signs (=).
• Encrypted shared folders cannot be accessed via NFS.
• Only x86 models support folder encryption.
• You cannot change an encrypted folder’s volume or path.
• The default shared folders cannot be encrypted.

Having multiple different encrypted shared folders would be a disadvantage for most other users as they usually have a single or at least very few encrypted volumes but isn't any different for you.

I have 7 thin volumes.

7 volumes in a 10 TB RAID group is an unusual configuration!

[cserl]

Killer criterium: Encrypted shared folders cannot be accessed via NFS.

[P3R]

For what application do you need NFS?

[cserl]

To make things worse: Virtualization is stopped during lock operation, too.
I will consider the downtime as Qnap memorial minutes.