From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 25 7:53:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7604B37B405 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:53:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Bsdguru@aol.com) Received: from Bsdguru@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id n.107.1bc2228 (4239) for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:53:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Bsdguru@aol.com Message-ID: <107.1bc2228.2868aa7a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:53:46 EDT Subject: Re: Status of encryption hardware support in FreeBSD To: hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message dated 06/24/2001 2:53:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, soren@soekris.com writes: > And btw, hardware beats software anytime. The fastest PC processor right > now is about the same speed as the slowest hardware. what are the numbers? Are you accounting for the overhead in accessing the hardware? the impact of the stop-and-wait requirements for hardware processing? What about bus availability in a heavily utilized router? You are going to double the bus requirement. Most people take a rather trivial approach to such evaluations, and i suppose im concerned about anyone who thinks that hardware is "always faster" than software, because that argument is blatently wrong. a 33Mhz ASIC will not always be faster than the host, particularly with transfer and setup requirements. It has to be 3-5 times faster than the host just to break even. Bryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message