Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:52:13 -0700 (PDT) From: David King <ketralnis@ketralnis.com> To: Bucky Jordan <bjordan@lumeta.com> Cc: David King <dking@ketralnis.com>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Quiet computer Message-ID: <20061012075101.Y5008@ketralnis.com> In-Reply-To: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> ~% time dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=10240 of=/dev/null >> 10240+0 records in >> 10240+0 records out >> 10485760 bytes transferred in 15.957354 secs (657111 bytes/sec) >> dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=10240 of=/dev/null 0.00s user >> 15.85s system 99% cpu 15.970 total > I'm also going to be doing a lot of SSL on a Poweredge 2950. So the > above is purely a memory/cpu test correct? (not like doing IO tests > where you want the size of the test data to be at least twice physical > ram). Here's results for the Woodcrest- I assume this is only on a > single core. Yes, I realize that the woodcrest is faster than above > mentioned cpu, but a 100x speed difference? That doesn't seem realistic > to me (although if those are valid results, I'd be pretty happy with > that)... Well, the Via Padlock has a hardware random-number generator, so the idea was to test that. It doesn't claim to be fast, just to be truly random > > bash-2.05b$ time dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=10240 of=/dev/null > 10240+0 records in > 10240+0 records out > 10485760 bytes transferred in 0.154649 secs (67803598 bytes/sec) > > bash-2.05b$ time dd if=/dev/urandom bs=8k count=10240 of=/dev/null > 10240+0 records in > 10240+0 records out > 83886080 bytes transferred in 1.165706 secs (71961615 bytes/sec)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061012075101.Y5008>