From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 15 07:42:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC0F16A403 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:42:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd3mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C8543D46 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:42:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd2mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr6so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.9]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J7600HZR2Q22770@l-daemon> for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:42:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml7so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.151]) by pd2mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J7600N9X2Q258Y1@pd2mr6so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:42:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from soralx.cydem.org ([24.87.27.3]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J76003UY2Q1AJR0@l-daemon> for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:42:02 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:41:59 -0700 From: soralx@cydem.org In-reply-to: <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> To: Undisclosed.Recipients: ; Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Message-id: <200610150041.59870.soralx@cydem.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org> <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Subject: Re: Quiet computer X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:42:02 -0000 > > Precisely. However, speed of the crypto engine should be directly > > proportional to a peak speed of the RNG, > > That statement makes no sense to me. Why would the RNG be relevant > after the session keys are established? okay, so I was wrong sure way to quickly find out if your idea is wrong: say it on a maillist :) (I thought for some reason that new random string needs to be generated for every block that's being encrypted) > I don't really care how fast the crypto engine is on my Via system. neither do I care how fast it is on someone else's system :p, but I'm just curious whether the speed VIA claims, 25Gbps(!) peak is achievable > I just care that it offloads the ALU. I haven't gotten around to > proving whether (and by how much) it does so. did you get to the point that you're sure it's being used? > > BTW... `ubench`? :) > > Not impressive. you're using the same board as OP? [SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2