Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:27:29 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@freebsd.org>, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Subject: Re: mps(4) driver (LSI 6Gb SAS) commited to stable/8 Message-ID: <AANLkTikzfvgwR2GMXuhfn_daOai7gUo-_kxi%2BUbZzb_D@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110218231306.GA69028@icarus.home.lan> References: <20110218164209.GA77903@nargothrond.kdm.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102190104280.14809@woozle.rinet.ru> <20110218225204.GA84087@nargothrond.kdm.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102190203470.14809@woozle.rinet.ru> <20110218231306.GA69028@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>wrote: > No -- /dev/urandom maybe, but not /dev/random. /dev/urandom will also > induce significantly higher CPU load than /dev/zero will. Don't forget > that ZFS is a processor-centric (read: no offloading) system. > /dev/urandom is linked to /dev/random. Is there some other difference I'm not aware of, or are you confusing it with Linux's random? -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikzfvgwR2GMXuhfn_daOai7gUo-_kxi%2BUbZzb_D>