Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:41:59 -0700 From: soralx@cydem.org To: Undisclosed.Recipients: ; Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quiet computer Message-ID: <200610150041.59870.soralx@cydem.org> In-Reply-To: <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org> <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200610150041.59870.soralx>